Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a trial recycling scheme. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains about the Council including him in a trial that requires him to have a fourth wheelie bin for paper and card.

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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if we believe it is unlikely we would find fault. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I checked with the Council if officers had checked that Mr X has space for a fourth bin. I considered the relevant law and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Environmental Protection Act 1990

4. The law says councils can decide what containers people must use for waste collection and the number of containers to be used.

Recycling trial

5. In September the Council started a one year trial involving 7500 homes. This is about 5% of the population. Households in the trial are required to put paper and card into a purple wheelie bin. The Council has provided a bin specifically for the paper and card. The Council collects the paper and card every four weeks.

What happened

6. Mr X’s home is included in the trial. The Council delivered the extra bin in September. Mr X immediately asked the Council to remove it. An officer visited and removed the bin as Mr X had requested. The officer told Mr X he would need to make his own arrangements to dispose of paper and card. The officer who visited says Mr X has space for a fourth bin but does not have space to keep four bins out of sight.
7. The Council told Mr X he is welcome to ask for the bin back. It explained that the purpose of the trial is improve paper and card recycling by keeping it clean. It said that paper and card is often contaminated when it is mixed with other recycling. It said that participants could give feedback and the trial will show if the size of bin and frequency of collection is correct. It accepted there could be issues around space or visual amenity but said it cannot take individual preferences into account. The Council explained that households had been selected to represent a wide spread of different types of households. Mr X’s area had been selected as a rural area.
8. Mr X is dissatisfied with the Council’s response. He has many objections to the trial. This includes an allegation that he is being discriminated against, that he does not have room for four bins, that the bin would be heavy to move and a purple bin would be unsightly. He says the law is silent on trials and the Council is acting illogically and unreasonably. He says the trial could damage the environment because, for example, carbon will be used to manufacture the bins.

Assessment

9. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The law allows councils to decide how it will operate its waste and recycling schemes. The fact that the law is silent on trials does not mean it is prohibited. The Council has explained why it is running the scheme and it offered to deliver another bin to Mr X if he changes his mind. I appreciate Mr X has many concerns about having a fourth bin but he has not tried using the bin and, if there are problems, he could raise them as feedback. For example, if he felt that four weekly collections make the bin heavy, then he could include this as part of his feedback. Mr X says the Council ignored his feedback. But, as Mr X declined to take part in the trial, then he cannot give feedback on how it operates in practice. In addition, while Mr X may not have the space to keep four bins hidden, this is not an indication of fault.
10. Mr X says he was not told he could opt out from the scheme. This is correct because there is no opt out. Instead, the Council has explained that if he chooses not to use the purple bin then the Council will not collect his paper and card. If people had the option to opt out then the Council would continue to collect paper as it did before the trial.
11. Mr X says he is being discriminated against. However, as only 5% of households have been selected for the trial, it will always be the case that only a small number of people are affected. This is not discrimination but a reflection of how trials operate. Further, discrimination relates to people being treated differently in terms of a protected characteristic such as religion, gender or sexuality. There is nothing to suggest people have been selected for the trial on the grounds of a protected characteristic.

Back to top

Final decision

12. I have decided not to investigate this because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman