Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about charges for replacement recycling containers. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council says he must pay for new recycling containers even though they were lost by Council staff.

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 an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, 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 read the complaint and the Council’s responses. I considered information on the Council’s website about charges. I considered comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Bin charges

4. The Council charges for all new, additional, lost, stolen, dirty and damaged containers. The cost of a red recycling container is £5. The cost of a white reusable bag is £2.50. There is a £5 delivery charge.

What happened

5. Mr X had three recycling containers. After one collection he discovered that two of the containers were missing. Mr X says they were lost by the collection crew. Mr X asked the Council for a new red box and a white bag. He then complained when he found out he would have to pay for them. He says he should not have to pay because he is not responsible for the loss.
6. In response the Council explained it charges to replace all containers. It said that councillors had introduced the charge in 2016 because the Council could no longer afford the £165,000 it was spending on providing bins. It confirmed the charge was correct.
7. Mr X disagrees with the response. He followed the Council’s advice for keeping the bins secure and the lack of the bins has impacted on his ability to recycle. He does not think he should pay for something that is not his fault. He says it is morally reprehensible for the Council to hide behind a policy to justify not correcting an act of negligence. Mr X says he may be forced to stop recycling unless the Council changes the policy.

Assessment

8. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The policy says the Council charges for replacement bins. The charge is not restricted to the resident being responsible for the loss. The Council’s decision is consistent with the policy so there is no reason to start an investigation. I appreciate Mr X may disagree with the policy. However, the Ombudsman does not act as an appeal body and he cannot intervene simply because the Council makes a decision, or has a policy, that someone disagrees with. If Mr X thinks the policy should be changed he would need to lobby his local councillors. Mr X says he does not want to that, as it would be a further waste of his time, but it is still an option open to Mr X if he wants to try to influence a change in the policy.
9. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. The containers will cost Mr X £12.50. This does not represent a level of injustice that warrants an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

10. I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault and injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman