Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr S’s complaint of it failing to act effectively on reports of missed bin collections. The collection of missed waste was delayed. It failed to identify, and solve, the cause of missed collections promptly. It failed to monitor the problem and made errors when attempting to relocate parking bays. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr S complains about the Council’s failure to act effectively on reports of missed bin collections for properties on his narrow road; as a result, he spent considerable time and effort pursuing this, and had the inconvenience and frustration of his bins not being emptied.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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’. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered all the information provided by Mr S, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent him. I did not send a complete copy. This is because one spreadsheet received contains the names and addresses of other residents making reports to the Council. As this is third party information, their details need to remain confidential. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr S and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr S lives in one of 45 properties in a double ended cul-de-sac separated by a road running across it. Both ends of the cul-de-sac have turning circles but, the road itself is narrow.
6. Problems began, noted Mr S, in 2018 when the Council changed the waste collection service its contractor provides. Before the change, the bin lorry would wait at the crossroads and the crew walked up the road to empty recycling tubs in to a large wheelie bin which they then emptied in to the lorry.
7. After 2018, the Council introduced larger wheelie bins for recycling. Larger wheelie bins meant larger lorries. The crew could not now wheel each bin to the crossroads, so the lorries drove up the narrow road. This proved difficult because of the size of the lorries, the narrowness of the road, and parking along it restricting its width even more.
8. Mr S claimed the Council failed to arrange missed collections until the next collection cycle. When the Council managed to arrange a collection within 48 hours, it sent a smaller lorry which mixed all types of waste and recycling. Mr S estimates a third of all collections were missed.
9. He believes the problem is partly due to white lines painted on the road for parking which made it difficult for the lorries to pass. He believes it was narrower than the 3-metre width required and worried about access for emergency vehicles. Several months passed before the Council agreed to his suggestion of moving opposite bays by 6 inches. Even then, it took several attempts to get the white lines in the correct place.
10. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted it realised there was an access problem in June 2019 because the distance between parking bay markings was less than it should have been. It also accepted the 2.7 metre gap between the bays may, ‘have compromised a fire appliance’. It also recognised an error with the corrective work ordered as the bays were wrongly re-marked in the same position rather than the new one. Attempts to correct this took longer than expected due to parked vehicles, for example. The re-marking of the bays allowed a 3-metre minimum gap.
11. The Council’s website states a report of a missed collection can be made within 2 working days. It will then ‘reschedule your collection for the next working day after you report the problem’.
12. The Council’s complaints procedure is as follows:

• Stage 1: The relevant department aims to deal with it as quickly as possible. If they cannot resolve it immediately, they aim to do so within 5 working days. Where it is more complicated, they will acknowledge it and respond in full within 20 working days.

Mr S complained to the Council on 23 August 2019. It acknowledged it 3 days later.

On 3 September, the Council replied agreeing to re-mark the bays.

• Stage 2: If a person remains dissatisfied, it can go to the next stage. This involves acknowledging it within 3 working days and responding in full within 20 working days.

Mr S called the Council on 7 October about progressing his complaint. He emailed the Council 9 days later having heard nothing. The Council confirmed it was looking at it under stage 2.

The Council sent its stage 2 response to Mr S on 28 October which agreed to place his road on the ‘narrow access’ collection schedule.

13. Mr S also complained about fly-tipping in the area. The Council confirmed its neighbourhood enforcement team is monitoring the road most days as it is aware of this problem. It agreed to install a deployable CCTV camera but, Covid-19 restrictions delayed it. The Council warned CCTV might have limited use if offenders drive to the site and it failed to read the car number plate, for example.

Analysis

14. I found fault on this complaint for the following reasons:
1. The Council’s evidence shows it received 14 reports of missed collections in 2018 (11 after deducting 3 possible duplicate reports), 32 in 2019 (24 after duplicates) and 6 in 2020. All are marked ‘inactive’ which I assume means they were actioned. These figures mean the Council received reports of missed collections on average 21 times a year or, about once every 2 weeks.
2. Evidence shows residents waited nearly a month after Christmas 2018 for the removal of waste.
3. The evidence failed to show when the contractor responded and completed the missed collection. This is an important failure as I am unable to say whether it missed its target of collecting within 48 hours of a report.
4. There is no evidence of the Council or the contractor carrying out monitoring of the situation to identify the recurring problem of missed collections and deciding what it needed to do to resolve it.
5. Nor have I seen evidence of systems either has in place to monitor whether performance meets agreed standards.
6. The evidence shows the contractor arranged to meet the recycling crew in December 2019 to ensure the service improved. An email from the contractor to the Council the same month confirmed ‘There is no way any vehicle will be getting in’.
7. The Council accepts the problem was one of access but, there is nothing to show why it failed to identify this before December 2019. An email from the Council to Mr S in January, for example, noted there were issues, ‘over the last few months regarding these missed collections’. An email to his local councillor in May raised concerns following contact with the local fire brigade about emergency access. The Council also accepted access was not wide enough for fire appliances.
8. There is no evidence the Council considered including the road on a ‘narrow access’ collection schedule before October 2019 when Mr S complained.
9. It took several attempts to re-mark the bays correctly which would have caused some frustration to Mr S and residents.
10. I am satisfied the fault caused Mr S distress. He went to the time and trouble of making repeated reports to the Council of missed collections which caused frustration and inconvenience. Delays resolving the parking bays and access caused some stress and anxiety as he had concerns about emergency services accessing the road.

Agreed action

15. I considered our guidance on remedies.
16. The Council will, within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint, carry out the following:
1. Send Mr S a written apology for failing to: take prompt and effective action to ensure the problem of repeat missed collections was identified and resolved sooner; monitor the situation; consider placing the road on a narrow access collection sooner; re-mark the parking bays correctly initially; provide evidence to show whether missed collections were collected within 48 hours of a report.
2. Pay him £200 for the distress the fault caused; and
3. Review its procedures to ensure the fault identified is not repeated in the future.

Back to top

Final decision

17. The Ombudsman found fault on Mr S’s complaint against the Council. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman