Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refuse collection service. We will not investigate the complaint because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr X, complained about the refuse collection service provided by the Council. He said the change from weekly to alternate fortnightly collections for general and recyclable waste and the inconsistent service had caused stress and inconvenience for which he should be compensated.

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:

• 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. In considering the complaint I spoke to Mr X and reviewed his complaints and the Council’s responses to them.

Back to top

What I found

4. After experiencing waste collection problems, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council and said his bins had not been collected on the days they should have been. He also said his bins, and those of other residents in his part of the road, had not been collected at all on the last collection day.
5. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint and explained it had been having problems with its collection service and was working with its contractor to improve it. It told Mr X one of the main problems was the increase in waste tonnage caused by people spending more time at home. With regard to the missed collection, it explained this had been the result of access problems caused by works by a utilities company.
6. A month later, Mr X escalated his complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure because the recycling bins in his part of the road had not been emptied.
7. The Council responded by explaining that collection had not been possible because a large vehicle had blocked access. However, it acknowledged that the crew should have made arrangements to go back to collect at a later time. It apologised to Mr X and told him it had raised the matter with the contractors and that supervisors were monitoring collections in his road to ensure service quality. The Council said it understood that since Mr X’s complaint regular collections were being made on the scheduled collection day.

Assessment

8. When I spoke to Mr X, he confirmed that matters had largely been resolved. As this is the case, and because the Council has taken appropriate action to address the problem, we will not investigate the complaint.
9. While I understand Mr X had been distressed and inconvenienced by the problems, his injustice is not at a level which would lead to a recommendation of compensation even if we were to investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we can add to the investigation already carried out by the Council and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman