Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a spillage of glass by a recycling vehicle. That is because there is insufficient injustice to justify investigation and further consideration would not achieve more for the complainant.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, says that:
• A recycling vehicle run by a Council contractor left a large amount of broken glass outside his home; and
• The Council did not respond appropriately to his complaint about the matter.

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:

• any fault by the council did not cause injustice significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by Mr X and the Council’s responses to his complaints and I have considered Mr X’s comments on the draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. A large amount of broken glass was left on the road outside Mr X’s house by a recycling vehicle run by a Council contractor.
5. Mr X told us he felt the glass represented a grave and immediate hazard to young children and vehicles using the road, so he cleared it up before contacting the Council.
6. Mr X complained to the Council via email on the same day. The Council told Mr X it had notified the contractor.
7. Mr X then asked the Council to investigate the contractor’s performance of its contract. He queried whether compensation would be payable for clearing the spillage.
8. The Council apologised for the spill but said it had not upheld Mr X’s complaint because he did not contact the contractor and give it an opportunity to rectify the problem. It said residents were advised that this was the correct procedure.
9. The Council agreed that the spill was unacceptable and said it had raised Mr X’s complaint with the contractor and reminded it how to manage spills.
10. The Council said it continually monitors the contractor’s performance which it deemed to be satisfactory overall.
11. The Council declined to offer compensation.
12. Mr X has brought his complaint to the Ombudsman as he is not satisfied with the Council’s response.
13. He believes that the Council’s failure to uphold his complaint, even though there has been fault, amounts to manipulation of the contractor’s performance data. There is no evidence that the Council’s monitoring of its contractor’s performance, which includes an inspection regime, is subject to manipulation.
14. We will not investigate because, although there is evidence of fault by the Council, it has investigated thoroughly, apologised and there is no evidence of significant injustice to Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

15. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is an insufficient level of injustice to justify an investigation and it is unlikely that we will be able to add to the Council’s investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman