Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s lack of satisfactory investigation when he reported his bin missing after a collection. We will not investigate this complaint. We cannot say now what happened to the bin, and we cannot say Mr X’s injustice was caused solely by the Council’s actions. It is unlikely we could therefore provide a meaningful outcome for Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained his waste bin went missing during a collection. He says his neighbour’s CCTV shows the operative collecting the bin then not returning it. He was not satisfied with how the Council handled his report of the missing bin.

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 injustice is not 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 Mr X provided when he complained to us.
4. I considered information the Council provided.
5. I gave Mr X the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr X told the Council in late 2019 his bin had gone missing during a collection. He told it his neighbour had CCTV that showed the Council’s operative taking his bin away but then not returning it. The Council used a hire vehicle that day, so it did not have its own CCTV. The operative did not report any issue with Mr X’s bin that day. When the Council later asked the operative what had happened, they could not remember any issue with Mr X’s bin. The Council checked if anything had been logged under another address on that street accidentally, but it had not.
7. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s investigation. Mr X asked the Council to replace his bin free of charge. The Council refused. It invited Mr X to send the CCTV evidence he referred to. He said he would not send it as the Council should have carried out a more thorough investigation itself.
8. We could not say now what happened to the bin, so it is unlikely we could find fault in the substantive part of Mr X’s complaint. We could not hold the Council responsible for the cost of Mr X’s replacement bin.
9. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. While Mr X was evidently frustrated by what he felt was a lack of satisfactory investigation, we should not investigate Mr X’s complaint simply to consider the complaint procedures. Mr X complains, for example, the Council did not take steps such as speaking to the operative in a timely way. However, Mr X’s refusal to provide the CCTV evidence to the Council means, in any event, it is likely we would decide Mr X added to his own injustice. It is unlikely therefore that we would recommend a meaningful remedy for Mr X if we were to investigate his complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault causing significant injustice, and it is unlikely we could provide a meaningful remedy for Mr X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman