Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s waste collection service. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr B to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, complains about the Council’s waste collection service. He says the Council did not clear up a food caddy spillage at his property and that it wastes council tax payer money with its directions about how to dispose of small electrical items.

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, 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)

3. We cannot investigate something that affects all or most of the people in a council’s area. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. In considering the complaint I reviewed the information provided by Mr B and the Council, including the Council’s responses to his complaint. I gave Mr B the opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered what he said.

Back to top

What I found

5. Following a waste collection which resulted in waste food being spilt on Mr B’s driveway, he complained to the Council about this matter and that small electrical items he had put out for collection in accordance with Council instructions had been moved and he thought they were not going to be collected.
6. The Council responded to Mr B’s complaint under the two stages of its complaints procedure. It advised him that it had spoken to the collection team which empties food caddies and reminded it to always place the caddies back correctly and to clear up any food spillage immediately. It gave apologies that he had had to clear up food waste from outside his property. It also explained what Mr B needed to do to dispose of small electrical items.

Assessment

7. The Council considered Mr B’s complaint and apologised for its failings. While I understand Mr B remains dissatisfied with the Council’s response, we do not investigate every complaint we receive and I see no grounds here which warrant a formal investigation of the complaint by the Ombudsman.
8. In response to my draft decision Mr B repeats his point that the Council should deal with spillages on the day and that this did not happen in his case. This issue has already been dealt with by the Council and if, as Mr B says, there continues to be a problem with spilt food not being cleared up then he should report this so the Council is made aware of the problem and can take appropriate action.
9. Mr B also says the Council’s advice to residents about the collection of small electrical items is misleading and a waste of public money. However, the Local Government Act 1974, as amended, sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The restriction highlighted at paragraph 3 applies to Mr B’s claim that tax payers’ money is being wasted and we would not investigate this matter as it falls outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Final decision

10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council or injustice caused to Mr B to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman