Summary: We should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about traffic delays caused by the Council’s waste collection vehicle. This is because we are unlikely to decide the Council’s actions amount to fault, or that they have caused a significant personal injustice to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council’s waste collection vehicle blocks a road during its collection route. Mr X says this causes a delay for drivers which is unreasonable.

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 or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mr X provided when he complained.
4. I considered complaints correspondence the Council provided.
5. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on a draft version of my decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X complained to the Council in late 2019 about its waste collection vehicle having blocked a road. Mr X was in a car behind the vehicle on one occasion and he says several other drivers were delayed by the vehicle. Mr X parked his car and took pictures as evidence to support his complaint.
7. The Council considered Mr X’s photographs and available CCTV footage. It responded to Mr X’s complaint and explained its staff had not acted with fault. It explained the members of staff had needed to park the vehicle in the road on this occasion to be able to do their job. Mr X disagreed and discussed the issue further with the Council. Mr X said the members of staff could walk up to 40ft between houses and the vehicle in order to ensure it did not block the road and cause issues with traffic.
8. The CCTV showed the vehicle caused a delay to Mr X of nearly two minutes on the occasion in question. Mr X says there is a wider issue of delays to the public as a whole due to the waste collection vehicles, and he indicates he has personally experienced these delays on more than one occasion. However, any injustice caused to Mr X is not significant enough to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman. Nor does the information I have seen lead me to believe there is a significant impact on the wider public that warrants investigation in the public interest. I cannot justify the cost to the public purse of investigating Mr X’s complaint, as the cost would be disproportionate to the injustice.
9. In any event, it is unlikely we would decide the Council’s actions amounted to fault. I have used my discretion not to start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault causing a significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman