Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaints about the Council’s waste disposal services. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault, the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. There is also another body better placed to consider parts of his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s waste disposal services and how it has dealt with his complains. His complaints include:
• incomplete waste and recycling collections;
• involving the police during a recycling collection;
• limiting access to its recycling centre;
• using offensive terms to describe him in internal Council emails;
• the Council’s response to his request for information about him;
• applying its unreasonable complaint policy; and
• it deleted emails about him.
2. Mr X says the Council has refused to “de-escalate” the situation and to treat his complaints seriously. He says there was no reason to involve the police and wants a sincere apology from the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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’. 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 further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr X provided in his complaint, including his letters to the Council and its responses to him. I also spoke to Mr X about his complaint.
6. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr X. I considered his comments before making a final decision.
7. Although Mr X referred to individual officers in his complaints to the Council, our role is to investigate the actions of the Council as a corporate body, not to hold individual officers accountable. In considering Mr X’s complaint, I have considered the actions of the Council as a corporate body.

Back to top

What I found

Incomplete waste and recycling collections

Background

8. Mr X says the Council failed to collect all or some of his waste or recycling around 10 times over the last 12 months. He says he reported several missed or incomplete collections and on other occasions raised the issue with the collections team on the day. Although the Council arranged to collect the missed items, Mr X says he should not have had to raise the issue so many times.
9. Staff from the Council and its waste contractors met with Mr X in his home to apologise for the missed collections and promised to monitor the collections. Mr X says that although the collections improved for a time after this, the problems resumed.
10. Mr X began filming the collections to ensure the crew collected all his bins. He says he has no problems when he films the collections, but that he should not have to do this to ensure the crew collects everything.
11. Mr X told me that he has had no problems with his bins for the last month or so and he has not felt the need to film. He wants the Council to guarantee there will be no future problems. The Council says it cannot ensure there will be no missed collections but has encouraged Mr X to report future issues and it will respond to any other missed collections.

Analysis

12. The Council does not dispute the missed or incomplete collections, has taken action to resolve the incidents Mr X has reported and to monitor his future collections.
13. Mr X’s bins have been collected regularly for the last month or so and the Council has promised to respond to any future problems. We would not expect the Council to guarantee there will never be any issues with Mr X’s collections.
14. Since the Council has resolved Mr X’s past collections and his collections are back to normal, there is not enough remaining injustice to justify an investigation of this part of Mr X’s complaint. It is also unlikely that an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Involving the police during a recycling collection

Background

15. During a collection of Mr X’s bins in late March 2020, there was a verbal exchange between Mr X and the collection crew. During the exchange, the crew phoned their supervisor because, according to the Council, the crew was concerned about a potential breach of social distancing rules.
16. The contractor referred the matter to the Council who decided to call the police about the alleged breach of social distancing rules. The police attended Mr X’s property a few days later and decided to take no further action.
17. Mr X says he has seen internal Council emails alleging Mr X tried to take the phone from the crew during the incident. The Council has accepted this accusation was made without any evidence to support it and has apologised to Mr X for the accusation.
18. Mr X says he is a carer for his disabled partner and is in a vulnerable group himself so would not consider breaching social distancing rules. He denies taking any action on the day of the collection that would have led the crew to fearing for their safety.
19. The Council has apologised to Mr X for any distress caused by involving the police but believes its actions were justified based on the statements provided by the collection crew.

Analysis

20. There is clearly a difference of opinion about what happened during the collection in late March. An investigation would be unlikely to be able to establish the facts of what happened.
21. The evidence suggests the Council decided to contact the police based on information it received from the collection crew and their perceived concerns about the situation.
22. Although some of these allegations were later unsubstantiated, we would be unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to contact the police based on the information it had at the time.
23. The Council has also apologised to Mr X for the distress caused and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome.

Limiting access to its recycling centre

Background

24. In late May, Mr X visited his local recycling centre. On arrival, staff asked Mr X if he had visited the centre within the last month, which Mr X confirmed he had. Staff told Mr X the Council had implemented a one visit per month policy to manage site use during the Covid-19 pandemic so he would not be able to use the site again yet.
25. Mr X was not aware of the new policy since this had only been published on the Council’s website and there were no signs at the site about the policy.
26. Mr X asked the staff if they could make an exception and allow him to deposit his paint cans but the staff refused.
27. A verbal exchange then occurred between Mr X and the site staff. During this exchange Mr X was asked to leave the site and when he refused, according to Mr X, the site supervisor also phoned the police.
28. The Council says CCTV and body camera footage of the incident shows that Mr X’s behaviour was not acceptable, and he did not stick to the published site rules, including obeying the instructions of staff on the site.
29. The Council also says the new usage policy had only recently been trialled and signs had been ordered but were not installed until a few days after Mr X’s visit. Mr X says the signs were only put up in response to his complaint.
30. The Council collected Mr X’s paint cans form his home a few days later.

Analysis

31. The Council decided to limit access to its recycling centre in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which it was entitled to do.
32. Although there were no signs to explain the policy during his visit, I am satisfied with the Council’s explanation that signs had been ordered before Mr X’s visit but had not yet arrived. The staff explained the policy and did not have to make an exception for Mr X, so it is unlikely we would find fault with the Council’s actions during his visit.
33. The Council also collected Mr X’s paint cans a few days later, so the injustice to Mr X is not significant enough to justify investigating this part of his complaint.

Using offensive terms to describe Mr X in internal emails

Background

34. When Mr X received a copy of his information in response to his freedom of information request, he found that a member of staff had used offensive terms to describe him in internal emails.
35. The Council apologised for the inappropriate comments and said it would take action to ensure that this would not happen again to the PA or other residents.

Analysis

36. The Council has responded as we would expect to this part of Mr X’s complaint. It has apologised to Mr X, which is an appropriate remedy and it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

The Council’s response to his request for information about him

Background

37. Mr X made a subject access request to the Council, under freedom of information rules, for a copy of the information it held about him. As part of this request, Mr X asked the Council for any video recordings of him held by the waste collection company.
38. Mr X says the Council did not tell him that he would need to contact the collection company directly for this information until he complained the information was missing.

Analysis

39. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about requests for personal data. Since this part of Mr X’s complaint is about access to his information, I consider it reasonable for him to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Applying its unreasonable complaint policy

Background

40. Mr X has made around 10 separate complaints to the Council about various officers involved with his waste collection.
41. In many of these complaints Mr X says that he intends to take his complaint to the Ombudsman and is following the Council’s complaints procedure because he is required to.
42. In late July 2020, the Council wrote to Mr X to tell him that it completed its consideration of his complaints about the waste collection and his visit to the recycling centre. The Council also warned Mr X that if he continued to contact the Council about these matters, it would consider applying its unreasonable complainant policy.
43. In early August the Council again wrote to Mr X saying that it would not consider four more of his complaints from late July and early August which related to matters it had already considered.

Analysis

44. The Council warned Mr X in July that it would not respond further to his complaints as it believed it could not add more to its investigations. When Mr X complained further, the Council responded as it had warned Mr X that it would.
45. Since the Council only declined to consider complaints about the issues it had already considered, the injustice to Mr X of applying its unreasonable complainant policy is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Deleting emails about him

Background

46. Mr X says the Council has instructed some of its staff to delete internal email chains about him. He is concerned the Council is attempting to hide or conceal information about him.

Analysis

47. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about personal data. Since this part of Mr X’s complaint is about the Council’s management of information it holds about him, I consider it reasonable for him to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

Final decision

48. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault, the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement and it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. There is also another body better placed to consider parts of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman