Summary: The Ombudsman found fault in how the Council handled changes to its waste collection service, but this did not affect its decision to change the service provided to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council’s decision to change its waste collection service, which means it no longer collects waste from his doorstep, was not properly made or justified. Mr X says the new arrangements, which need him to move his waste a long distance to a collection point next to a public road, were introduced at short notice, are inconvenient and put his health at risk. Mr X wants the Council to immediately reintroduce his doorstep waste collection.

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. 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)
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I have:

• considered Mr X’s written complaint;
• talked to Mr X about the complaint;
• asked for and considered the Council’s comments and supporting information about the complaint;
• shared the Council’s comments and, where possible, supporting information with Mr X; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mr X and the Council and considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Section 45 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (‘the Act’) says councils must collect their residents’ household waste unless a property is so isolated or inaccessible collection costs would be unreasonably high. In such cases, councils must be satisfied adequate arrangements for disposing of the waste can reasonably be made by the person controlling that waste.
7. Councils have powers under section 46 of the Act to tell people:

• what bins or other containers they must use for their waste; and
• where, including on public roads, and when they must place their bins for emptying.

8. Councils employ staff and must follow employment laws, which include protecting the health, safety, and welfare of employees while they are at work.
9. The Council has a Corporate Health and Safety Policy (‘the Policy’). The Policy says managers are responsible for all health and safety matters within their service including the:

“preparation, monitoring and review of risk assessments for significant hazards identified within their area of responsibility. Devising and implementing control measures appropriate to the risk and ensuring that all employees are trained in these measures.”

What happened

10. Access to Mr X’s home is from a single width road (‘the Road’) that is, in part, walled and gated and rises from the nearest main public road (‘the ‘A’ road’). Lancashire County Council is the local road authority and looks after part of the Road but not its full length up to Mr X’s property. Mr X accepts that near his home the Road is ‘more of a track’ but says underneath (grass grows in the Road), it is tarmacked. Mr X also accepts the Road looked after by the County Council is ‘bumpy’ and has potholes. Mr X says visibility along the Road is ‘mainly good’ and so drivers can pull into field entrances to allow another vehicle to pass.
11. The Council collected Mr X’s household waste from his property using a small refuse vehicle. The Council says, following a health and safety concern, it reviewed the waste collection service it provided to about 700 “hard to reach” properties. The Council identified Mr X’s home as a ‘hard to reach property’.
12. The Council says the review:

• considered formal guidance from the Waste Industry Safety and Health Forum (WISH); and
• included its Health and Safety officer and waste collection Supervisor viewing the collection routes for hard to reach properties during June/July 2018 and May 2019.

13. The Council says it applied safety considerations to assess the suitability of collection points. The safety considerations were:

• the top of a dead end road needed at least a 23 metre turning circle;
• a turning circle had to be unobstructed on collection day;
• roads needed to be at least 5 metres wide;
• roads needed to take the weight of a 26 tonne vehicle;
• a road surface needed to be of an acceptable standard;
• narrow roads should not have soft verges;
• roads should have no overhanging or projecting trees and bushes that might damage collection vehicles or interfere with their use (raising/lowering bins to empty them into the vehicle);
• roads should not have excessive gradients; and
• employees working alone.

14. The Council says the review identified health and safety concerns with collections to about 180 properties, including Mr X’s home. The Council says access to Mr X’s home failed the third and sixth to ninth bullet points set out in paragraph 13 of this statement.
15. On 12 September 2019, the Council wrote to people living at the 180+ properties, which included Mr X, using its powers under section 46 of the Act. The Council’s letter told Mr X it was changing its waste collection service. And, from 30 September 2019, it would stop collecting household waste from his property, which waste he had to take to a collection point. The collection point given to Mr X was land alongside the Road near its junction with the ‘A’ road. The Council has provided evidence to show it owns the collection point land. (Mr X says the collection point is about 0.7 miles from his home.) The Council’s letter said the change aimed to “reduce the risks associated with collecting waste and recycling from remote locations”. The letter set out the nine criteria summarised at paragraph 13 of this statement and twice referred to doorstep collections from properties on private roads changing to collections at the nearest public road. The letter suggested that, if the access changed to meet the Council’s criteria, doorstep collections could continue/resume. The letter also explained how people could contact the Council about the changes or ask for an assisted service. (Mr X has confirmed that he does not need an assisted service.)
16. On 26 September, the Council again wrote to affected residents under section 46 of the Act. The letter repeated information from the 12 September letter and added details about the new arrangements. The letter also said the Council would closely watch the new collections and quickly deal with any issues.
17. Mr X wrote to local councillors to complain about the new arrangements. Mr X’s concerns included:

• the short notice given for the change;
• the lack of information about the health and safety assessment and decision; and
• the impact of leaving waste in direct contact with flora and fauna.

18. The Council responded to Mr X under its complaint procedure. In summary, the Council:

• said two weeks’ notice was reasonable and experience showed giving longer led people to put waste out for collection on the new day too soon or to forget the date of the change;
• said managers were authorised to agree changes on health and safety grounds without approval from councillors;
• gave Mr X the Health and Safety Officer’s qualifications and the written assessment for the Road;
• said the small refuse vehicle used for Mr X’s doorstep collection remained available should the Road change and meet its nine criteria (see paragraph 13); and
• said it was giving residents refuse bags and so waste should not come into direct contact with flora or fauna.

19. Mr X made a ‘freedom of information request’ to the Council seeking details of health and safety incidents with waste collections from remote properties. The Council sent Mr X all the information it held about waste collection incidents between December 2011 and August 2019, which listed 91 events.
20. In coming to the Ombudsman, Mr X questioned any involvement by a specialist officer as the Council had not provided a health and safety assessment for the Road. Mr X considered assessment of the Road showed the waste supervisor’s views about its use by a larger refuse vehicle. Mr X also pointed to the Council giving two weeks’ notice to change arrangements that had been in place for at least 20 years. Overall, Mr X said the Council had not adequately responded to his complaint.
21. In responding to the Ombudsman, the Council confirmed it had changed its service, given its legal health and safety duties. The Council said there was a risk in collecting waste from Mr X’s home, which it had removed by changing his waste collection point. The Council also provided a June 2019 video of the collection route for Mr X’s home recorded by cameras on its small refuse vehicle. The video shows the Road as just wide enough for the vehicle. Some trees/bushes growing alongside the Road, touch the vehicle as it passes. The video also shows the driver’s mate walking in front/behind the vehicle along a walled stretch to open and close a gate. The driver’s mate regains access to the vehicle at a gap in the wall for a field entrance, which involves a short reversing movement by the vehicle. The video also shows the vehicle reversing from another gate to gain access to Mr X’s property. After collecting waste from Mr X’s property, the vehicle then leaves in forward gear.

Consideration

22. I recognise Mr X’s concerns about the Council stopping, at short notice, a longstanding service to his home. And yet, I do not criticise the Council for reviewing its services on health and safety grounds. And, the law allows the Council, under the Act, to tell people where to place their household waste for collection. However, in doing so it must comply with the Act and meet acceptable administrative standards.
23. Mr X questions the lack of notice about changes to his collection service. The Act does not say councils must consult residents before changing their waste collection point. And I recognise what the Council says about peoples’ behaviour with long lead times for changes to collection services. I also recognise that addressing health and safety concerns may need quick action from councils. And yet, the evidence here shows the Council’s health and safety-based review was in progress by June 2018, which is about 16 months before it first wrote to Mr X and other affected residents. So, the Council had time to consult residents of the 180+ affected properties. Given the circumstances here, I find the Council fell below acceptable administrative standards in not engaging with residents, including Mr X, before sending its 12 September letter and using its powers under the Act.
24. The September letters sent to Mr X also refer to new collection points at the ‘end of public roads’. Here, although Mr X has not raised the issue, his new collection point is not where the Road changes from a public to private route. Rather, the new collection point is some distance along the section of Road looked after by Lancashire County Council. And yet, from the Council’s video, most of the Road for which the County Council is responsible fails the same Council criteria (see paragraph 13) as the private section. The Council sent plans with its September letters that showed the place residents, including Mr X, should leave their household waste. The letters also gave people information about how to contact the Council about the changes. However, the Council’s September letters could have caused confusion for Mr X and others whose new collection points were not at the ‘end of a public road’. I therefore find fault here.
25. Mr X says the information provided by the Council about the Road is not a ‘risk assessment’. I share Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s information, which reads as a description of the Road. That description does not, expressly, refer to the Council’s criteria (see paragraph 13) or identify what risks arise from the description or assess how to reduce or remove any risks. I therefore find fault here because the Council did not provide Mr X with inadequate information about its review.
26. As I have found fault in how the Council handled changes to its collection service, I have also considered whether such faults are likely to have caused Mr X injustice. In doing this, I place weight on the video provided by the Council, taken from its small collection vehicle, of the route to and from Mr X’s home. From watching the video, I am satisfied:

• the Council’s description of the Road is accurate; and
• the Road, for most of its length fails several of the criteria set out at paragraph 13 of this statement.

27. So, if I asked the Council to reconsider its decision, putting right the faults I have identified, I find it unlikely the Council would restore Mr X’s doorstep collection. I therefore find that fault by the Council has not caused Mr X significant injustice. Rather, if those faults had not taken place, Mr X would find himself in the same position: having a collection point 0.7 miles from his home.

Back to top

Final decision

28. I completed my investigation finding fault by the Council but such fault not causing Mr X significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman