Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has repeatedly failed to return his bin to his home after emptying and has failed to respond appropriately to his complaints. The Council is at fault and has agreed to a financial remedy and service improvement.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complains that:

1. The Council has repeatedly failed to return his bins to his home after emptying; and

2. The Council’s response to his complaints have been inadequate in that:

1. Its enforcement has been too limited, meaning improvements are not sustained beyond the short term; and
2. The Council does not make clear to callers that their complaints are not being treated as complaints but as “service requests” or advise that service requests and complaints are treated differently. He says his complaints were not being treated as complaints, which delayed the Council’s investigation.

2. Mr X says he has spent large amounts of time both complaining about the service and retrieving his bins for a protracted period. He seeks compensation and assurance that in future his bins will be returned to his home. He would also like a penalty imposed on the Council’s waste contractor for its poor performance.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. I have investigated the Council’s actions with regards to Mr X’s bins and its response to his complaints.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I spoke to Mr X and considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. I have sent Mr X and the Council this draft statement for their comments and considered these before finalising my decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. In mid-September 2019 Mr X complained to the Council that his bins had been left 60 yards away from his home in a car park after emptying. The Council responded to say Mr X had been added to a monitoring list and that a “close eye” would be kept on his collections “to identify any issues and ensure they are rectified speedily”.
8. Mr X responded after a further missed collection requesting an escalation to Stage 2. The Council apologised, stating that it had been “experiencing operational issues” with the waste service for several months. It said a new crew had been assigned to empty Mr X’s bins from mid-October and that his bin collections would be monitored over the next few weeks.
9. Mr X continued to raise the same issue throughout October and November. Council records show Mr X emailed the Council about its failure to return his bins on nine occasions including his initial complaint in September 2019 and a final contact in January 2020.
10. In April and June 2020 Mr X emailed the Council to report that the issue had reoccurred. The Council’s records show Mr X submitted a formal complaint following the June email.
11. The Council responded to this complaint in late June with an apology, adding: “On your next collection day the waste supervisor will be issuing the crews that collect your bins with a memo which they will need to sign to confirm that they will collect [and]/return all your bins… you should start to see an improvement in the level of service you receive.” It urged Mr X to report any further problems.
12. The following week Mr X’s bins were not returned. In mid-July Mr X asked for his complaint to be re-opened as the problem had reoccurred.
13. The Council responded the same month. It again stated that the crew would be issued with a memo to sign confirming the return of Mr X’s bins and said it had requested a supervisor check Mr X’s bins periodically. It also added that staffing shortages due to Covid-19 meant disruption to some services was likely.
14. Mr X made further complaints that his bins had not been returned in August and September. In October 2020 the council responded to the September complaint with reference to spillages and obstruction of traffic, matters about which Mr X had not complained. Mr X then took his complaint to us.
15. As well as complaining about the repeated failure to return his bins, Mr X said the Council had failed to record some of his complaints as such because he had not used the word “complaint” in his communications. He said that instead his concerns were treated as a “service request” but he was not advised that these were treated by the Council in a different way, or that he could make a complaint as well as a service request.
16. In its response to my enquiries the Council said its call centre advisors were trained to escalate service requests to complaints when they had not been resolved.
17. It also said it had made an error in the way Mr X’s concerns had been recorded. Mr X had asked for these to be added to the case notes on his original complaint. The Council said that as some of these were added after the original complaint had been closed, they were not picked up by the waste service, which only responds to open matters.
18. With regards to the failure to return Mr X’s bins, the Council said a new way of working introduced in October 2019 had led to high numbers of complaints and that during this period its primary focus had been on completing collection rounds and reducing missed collections. It said the service had begun to stabilise in February but was then affected by staff shortages and increased household waste volume as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. It added: “The service quality issues raised by Mr X have unfortunately had to be accorded a lower priority during this period of significant service disruption. The Council acknowledges that it should have communicated this better to Mr X.”
19. It concluded: “The Council acknowledges that the service levels have not been to our usual standard however as this is a service quality issue rather than a service failure we feel that there has been minimal injustice caused to Mr X. Unfortunately, we are not able to guarantee that Mr X’s bin will be returned on every collection. This is even more so the case in the current climate due to the increase in staff isolating which means that there can be disruption to the usual collection teams with the specific route knowledge.
20. “We are committed to improving the service generally and have put measures in across the service to improve the performance. In addition to this we have carried out additional monitoring of Mr X’s collections and on the six most recent monitoring forms the crew had returned the bins near to Mr X’s property.”
21. The Council’s waste contractor Amey also responded to my enquiries. It acknowledged that standard monitoring procedures had failed to address the problem of Mr X’s bin return and that it had introduced independent monitoring in Mr X’s case rather than relying on the waste team’s supervisor. It said it had also extended monitoring of Mr X’s collection beyond the usual four-week period to three months.
22. The Council told me that while its contract with Amey allows for some deductions based on performance, these are in “specific high risk areas” and do not cover the issues raised in Mr X’s complaints.

Analysis

23. The Council failed to return Mr X’s bins on numerous occasions over a protracted period. Amey has latterly identified that its monitoring system has not been working as it should, meaning improvements were not sustained.
24. The Council has sought to explain its failure by reference to an operational change and pandemic-related staffing issues, although the timeline suggests that during the lockdown period of March-June Mr X experienced relatively few problems. Amey’s response also suggests the failure of the monitoring system to produce sustained improvement from July 2020 onwards may have been due to a lack of independent monitoring rather than insufficient staffing. I find the Council is at fault in failing to ensure Mr X’s bins were returned to his home.
25. The Council has stated that its staff are trained to escalate service requests to complaints when these had not been resolved. There is no evidence this was done in respect of Mr X’s complaints. Mr X’s emails to the Council made clear that the failure to return his bins was a systemic issue, yet these were not escalated to complaints. The Council has not addressed Mr X’s point that he was not advised of the difference between service requests and complaints. The Council has, however, admitted its communication with Mr X could have been better and that his emails were not always dealt with appropriately. I find the Council is at fault in its handling of Mr X’s complaints.
26. The Council states that as Mr X’s complaint concerns service quality rather than service failure, the injustice caused has been minimal. I can see no reason why a failure to collect a bin from a person on any single occasion should necessarily be considered a more significant injustice than a failure to return a bin to their home. In my view the time Mr X has spent collecting his bin and complaining about the service amounts to injustice that is more than minimal.
27. I recommended the Council pay Mr X £250 to compensate for the time and trouble he has spent retrieving his bin and complaining to the Council. Mr X feels this is insufficient to compensate him for the inconvenience caused. He points out he asked the Council to pay him £20 for each missed collection. Having referred to our remedy guidance and compared the recommended remedy with agreed remedies in other bin collection cases, I am satisfied that my recommended remedy is proportionate.
28. I further recommended the Council ensures that all those contacting the Council in connection with the waste service are advised of the difference between a service request and a complaint. Mr X has also asked that the Council amend its systems in various ways including:

• allowing residents to associate a problem with previous occurrences on record;
• offering them the option of escalating a service request to a complaint;
• ensuring residents are asked to confirm a problem has been solved before closing a service request or complaint; and
• ending the automatic deletion of details when a new service request is assigned to an existing one.

29. The Council has told me that in the light of previous complaints, a broad-ranging review of the waste collection is under way.
30. Mr X wants the Council to impose a financial penalty on its contractor. The Council has explained it is unable to do this under the terms of its contract.

Agreed action

31. The Council has agreed that within one month of this decision it will:
1. Pay Mr X £250 to reflect his time and trouble in retrieving his bins and making complaints; and
2. Ensure, via staff training or guidance, that:
3. people contacting the Council are advised they can make a service request or a complaint and of the difference between these; and

ii) repeat complaints or service requests about similar issues are identified and appropriately recorded.

Back to top

Final decision

32. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault. The Council has agreed a financial remedy and service improvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman