Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly collect waste from a building his company manages. He also complained the Council didn’t respond properly to missed collection reports. There was no fault, but the council agreed to improve communication with the company to help avoid future problems.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that on numerous occasions the Council failed to collect refuse from a property his company manages. He complains that although this was raised with the Council, the missed collections continue and the issue has not been resolved. Mr X complains the missed collections led to additional cost for his company and for residents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 spoke to Mr X and considered information he provided. I listened to recordings of calls between his company and the council about missed refuse collections. I familiarised myself with the location of the building and the bin stores. I asked the Council for information and I considered the Council’s response to the complaint.
5. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Mr X works for a company that manages a building in London. He complains the Council repeatedly failed to collect rubbish from three separate bin stores at the building, which is a large apartment block. The front of the property is on a high street, the rear of the property is on another road.
7. The building contains three blocks of flats. Two have separate, but similar postcodes on the high street. The third has a postal address on the road to the rear. There are three bin stores in the building as whole. All three bin stores are accessed from the road to the rear. I have referred to these as Bin Store 1, Bin Store 2 and Bin Store 3 in this statement.
8. Mr X told us there have been multiple missed waste collections going back 12-18 months.

The company’s complaint to the Council

9. Mr X’s company complained to the Council on 24 January 2019. In its complaint, the company referred to the overall name for the development and a main high street address.
10. The complaint was that missed refuse and recycling collections had occurred in July 2018. Because of this, the company arranged for a private contractor to clear the waste that had built up. Their private contractor cleared waste on 1 August 2018.
11. The Council queried when the missed collections had been reported. It stated it had no records of any reports of missed collections at the address given. It asked if the company had any reference numbers. The company gave a reference from a report. However, this was a report made on 2 August after the company employed the private contractor.
12. In response, the Council stated there had been a few operational issues with breakdowns and sheer volume of waste from apartment blocks. The Council told the company it was working with the contractor to minimise these and hopefully there would be no more missed collections. It apologised.
13. The company were unhappy. They noted residents paid for waste collections through council tax and now had to pay again through service charges because a private contractor had to be used. They asked for a refund of the fees incurred to clear the bin stores.
14. The Council stated only one missed collection was reported and this was made on 2 August 2018 after the company had already employed the private contractor to clear the site.
15. The company asked the Council to escalate the complaint. They noted the Council had operational issues and repeated the request for a refund of the fees it incurred. It stated the development was made up of three blocks of flats and as there were so many flats, they generated a lot of waste which could not be left to build up.
16. The Council maintained its position to the complaint when responding further. On 17 June the Council sent its final response to the complaint. The Council stated it had not been given a chance to rectify the missed collection reported on 2 August as the company had already arranged a contractor to clear it. As a result, it would not be appropriate for the council to refund the contractor’s fee. The Council also noted the company had arranged a contractor to collect waste on 7 August without first reporting a missed collection, so it would also not refund these costs.
17. A further report of a missed collection was received on 14 August (due on 12th). This was rectified the same day. The Council says a call was made to the company to confirm this on 17 August. This concluded the Council’s response to the 2018 issues that Mr X’s company complained of.
18. The Council told the company that any missed collections should be reported as soon as possible so they could be rectified at the earliest opportunity.
19. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman because he was dissatisfied with the Council’s response. He also noted that problems with missed waste collections continued and need to be resolved.
20. Since Mr X’s complaint in 2018, the Council told Mr X it had recorded the following missed collection reports:
• 29 April 2019
• 2 July 2019
• 4 July 2019
21. Mr X told us this was not a full list. He stated reports were also made on 1 April 2019, 20 May 2019 and 19 June 2019.
22. The Council says the report made on 1 April 2019 was closed as it was not a valid missed collection report. This is because the report was made on the day that collection was due and the crew had not yet arrived at the site. I understand the collection was made later on the due date; 1 April.
23. The Council says the report made at the end of April 2019 was also made on the day of collection. So, the crew had not yet arrived. It stated at that time there were separate cardboard and plastic collections.
24. The company says this report was made on 29 April. In correspondence with the Council about their complaint, they stated they had visited the site on 1 May and had taken photographs. They showed the recycling had not been collected within one day of the report. The company had a contractor clear the recycling on 1 May at further cost.
25. On 13 May 2019 the refuse collection supervisor emailed the company to request a new fob for Bin Store 1 as the recycling crew’s access fob had stopped working. The Council says no reply was received.
26. On 20 May the company raised another missed collection. They stated the bin store had not been emptied for two weeks. The bin crew reported they could not access the site. This missed collection report was cleared by the Council on 22 May.
27. In respect of the missed collection report from 19 June 2019. The Council says it collected the waste on 20 June 2019.
28. On 27 June 2019 Mr X’s company arranged for coded padlocks to be installed at Bin Stores 2 and 3. This is because there were instances of people sleeping in them. They emailed the Council that day to confirm the codes for the padlocks. In that email they also stated the code of the key safe to access Bin Store 1 had changed.
29. On 2 July 2019 the company reported a missed collection (that was due 27 June). The Council’s records show that this was collected on 3 July 2019. It noted the next collection was due 4 July 2019.
30. On 4 July 2019 the company called regarding the previous missed collections. However, a collection had occurred 3 July. In the call they confirmed the access code and padlock codes to ensure the Council had correct information. When making this call the company quoted the main high street address for the development. The Council could not find the blocks of flats on its systems based on this address. However, the Council’s call handler called the contractor. The contractor confirmed they had been to collect the waste. The call handler thought there may be confusion generally because the collections were listed as sack collections, rather than collections from communal bins. She agreed to escalate to a manager.
31. The Council says it noted from the 4 July call that reports were being made using the main high street address, when each block of flats had separate postal addresses. There is a commercial premises at the main high street address, and the bin stores are on a different road, so this may have caused confusion with bin crews. The Council noted the actual bin stores were around 30m from the commercial premises (and on a different road). However, the Council does not seem to have contacted the company to discuss this or agree what address or information the company should quote when making reports to ensure they are properly understood.
32. The Council says on 17 July the waste contractor confirmed the new access code worked. However, at that time, they stated there was no fob in the key safe.
33. On 7 October 2019 the company reported a further missed collection. The Council says it was recorded as ‘missed recycling bags’. This was collected the same day.

Access Issues

34. The Council says it could not access the bin store on 13 May, it reported this but did not get a reply. The company provided some details of when new fobs were ordered. This shows two new fobs were ordered by the company in 2019. One was 19 June and the other was 23 July. But, I do not have confirmation of whether these were for the Council or when they were sent to the Council.
35. The access issue appears to have meant that the 13 May collection did not happen. However, the Council was able to collect waste on 22 May in response to the report that the 20 May’s collection had been missed. So, the access issue does not seem to have been significant overall. The Council also explained that at times it could transfer a fob from one team (waste collection to another (recycling) but this was not preferable as it increased the possibility a fob could be lost.
36. I also note that the Council had access to a key safe to get a spare fob to access Bin Store 1. This is also used by other contractors. The Council noted that provided it had a working fob (which it had for the majority of the period concerned), it did not need to use the key safe for Bin Store 1. As a result, the change of access code does not seem significant.

Council’s policy for dealing with missed collections

37. The Council advises customers that missed bin collections cannot be made if the bin crew has not yet visited the road concerned to carry out collections. It notes collections are made at various times of the day. If, after a crew has visited, a collection has been missed, the Council requires it to be reported by 1pm the next day. If a valid report of a missed collection is received, the council’s policy is to collect it the next working day.

Was there fault by the Council

38. Based on information from Mr X’s company and the Council, it seems evident that there have been missed collections at this site. It is not fault in itself that some missed collections occur. However, I have considered if there have been excessive numbers of missed collections or if there was fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s company’s reports about them.
39. The complaint concerns the way the Council dealt with reports made during August 2018. This is what prompted Mr X’s company to complain.
40. Mr X’s company sought two key things. Firstly, the reimbursement of the cost of a contractor to remove accumulated waste. This was said to be due to missed waste collections during July and August 2018. Secondly, an assurance that bin collections would be made correctly and in future and not missed.
41. The council expects people to report missed collections promptly. It has a policy to state how it will respond. The Council should be given a chance to remedy them in accordance with its policy. So, I found no fault in the Council’s decision not to reimburse Mr X’s company’s costs from August 2018. Neither Mr X or the Council provided evidence missed collections had been reported in July before the company arranged a contractor to attend on 1 August or 7 August. The other missed collection in mid August 2018 was resolved in accordance with the Council’s policy.
42. Although I do not consider there are grounds to seek a refund of costs, the Council’s response to the initial complaint was vague. Although it did not agree there was evidence of missed collections in July, it apologised and referred to problems with capacity which it hoped would be resolved. This was somewhat contradictory.
43. However, I did not find fault in the actions taken by the Council about its handling of the 2019 reports. The 1 April report was premature as it was made during the day of collection, the report on 20 May was cleared on 22 May. Although this was one day longer than the council’s policy, action was still taken promptly. The reports from 19 June and 2 July were dealt with the same day or the next day.
44. There is a question over how the report from 29 April was resolved. The Council noted this report was from 24 April, but stated it was premature because it was raised on the collection date. It appears the date the Council quoted was incorrect. The collection dates are Monday and Thursday. 24 April was not a collection date. In any event, Mr X provided evidence that the waste had not been collected by 1 May. It seems most likely this was a report made on 29 April as the company says. But, it was reported by the company the same day it was due. This was not accepted by the Council as crews would still have been out collecting waste until the end of the day. The company could have reported the matter again the following day if the collection was not made, but it decided to engage a contractor on 1 May to clear the recycling.
45. I recognise the difficulties for the company managing the building when collections are missed, but as they did not give the council notice of the missed 29 April collection on 30 April (or 1 May when they discovered it), I do not consider it appropriate to recommend the reimbursement of the costs of the contractor. It was open to the company to report the missed collection in line with the Council’s policy.
46. Although I have not found the Council should refund the specific fees incurred, there seems evidence of a sporadic problem in respect of the company’s building. The number of missed collections is not very high, but it is obviously frustrating for the company. The company is not on site so they rely on reports from residents. They explained the bin stores get full fairly quickly if collections are missed.
47. From looking at the comments from both parties, and from listening to some recorded calls Mr X provided, it seems possible there are some issues with communication on both sides. It seems possible they may be responsible for, or could have exacerbated the issue. For example;
• The building in question is large and has more than one postal address. There is a main high street address and three separate named blocks of flats. When reports have been made of missed collections there is evidence the main high street address is that which is mostly quoted by the company. However, the bin stores are located to the rear on a different road. So, arguably the company could better describe the location of the bin stores when making reports and requesting the missed collections were remedied.
• From the Council’s side, if it uses various different addresses (for example, logging missed collections against individual flats) when noting missed collection reports for the bin stores, this could add to the confusion.
• Also, when reports were being made, staff at the Council indicated there may also be confusion over what needed to be collected. The Council’s notes from March 2018 missed collections stated ‘bins were not left out’, but these are commercial sized bins provided by the Council that are in bin stores, the bin crews should go into the stores to access them, they are not ‘left out’. In addition, in July 2019, the council’s contact centre told the company that the contractor was expecting to collect ‘sacks’ not commercial bins, which they thought may also be causing confusion. A call handler escalated the issue at the end of June. The Council noted it in early July, but it is not clear if it contacted its crews to ensure it was clear what should be collected from where.
• The Council also noted the bin stores are some 30m from the ‘main high street address’ but it does not seem to have advised the company what it could or should quote when making its reports about these bin stores to ensure clarity.
48. Given there are some ongoing issues, it would seem appropriate for the council (and perhaps the council’s contractor) to speak to, Video Conference with or meet representatives of the company to ensure there is no confusion in future. This would ensure clarity over the locations of the bin stores and it would be appropriate for the Council to agree with the company one specific address or location to quote when making reports. Staff at the council could then ensure the same address/details are always used when passing on missed collection reports. This would ensure a clear audit trail of any reports made about this location and it would ensure no confusion when bin crews are asked to return in the event there are any missed collections. The Council agreed to meet the company on site as soon as that was possible.

Back to top

Draft decision

49. I found no fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

50. Mr X’s company provided some information about waste collections going back to 2015. We expect complaints to be brought to the Ombudsman within 12 months of someone becoming aware of them, so our investigation will only consider events from August 2018 onwards.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman