Summary: There was fault by the Council as it gave Mr X wrong information when it responded to his official complaint about the Council’s approval process for waste charges. However, there is no fault in charging Mr X for a replacement bin under the terms set out in its policy and the Council has said that it considers its policy is satisfactory. The injustice caused to Mr X in writing to the Council on the issue is not so significant to warrant a remedy for this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council broke his wheelie bin and are unfairly wanting him pay for a new one.
2. Mr X says he has spent time and trouble complaining. He wants the Council to supply a new bin to him free.

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’. 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)
4. 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

5. I read the papers put in by Mr X and discussed the complaint with him.
6. I considered the Council's comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Mr X considers the Council’s bin collection vehicles caused the damage to his bin because the Council did not effectively maintain them. The Council says it inspects the vehicle’s bin lift regularly and any defects identified would have not caused the damage to Mr X’s bin. From the information I have seen, I do not consider there is enough evidence to say whether the Council broke Mr X’s bin.
9. The Council’s website says its charge for a replacement bin of the same volume as Mr X’s damaged one is £38 (£36 in 2018/2019). I do not consider that cost is such a significant personal injustice to Mr X to justify us investigating.
10. Mr X has spent his time and taken trouble to write several times with the Council and gather information about its bin service using Freedom of Information requests. But this was Mr X’s choice. I do not consider inconvenience caused to him from this can be attributed to the Council, so it would not give any further injustice grounds for us to investigate.
11. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council said “the Council’s policy for providing new and replacement wheeled bins was agreed by Cabinet Members in June 2018”. Mr X says he cannot find a record of this decision in the cabinet minutes or locate any published policy document to this effect.
12. The Council has sent me a copy of the report from the waste services manager from April 2018 for non-commercial waste charges in 2018/2019. In response to my enquiries, the Council has said service area directors always approve fees not Cabinet members.
13. The Council gave Mr X wrong information in response to his official complaint, as there was no agreement with Cabinet Members. This was fault and has led to doubt the Council’s waste policy has been correctly approved. While I understand Mr X’s concerns, the Council’s website outlines clearly the charges it intends to make and as it has charged in accordance with this I do not consider this fault has caused Mr X to wrongly pay a charge.
14. However, the fault has left Mr X with concerns the Council did not properly approve its policy. He has noticed the warranty on the Council’s bins has changed from 10 years to 1 year and that this warranty is from the date the bin is made, which could be 30 years ago as the Council does not automatically supply a recently made bin.
15. In response to my further enquiries, the Council has said ‘the councils Constitution sets out what decisions officers can make. Since 2017 the matter of formally approving fees and charges has been a decision made by the relevant Director. Before presenting our revised fees and charges to the Director there is an expectation that we will liaise informally with the relevant Cabinet Member. Once the fees and charges report and an Officer Decision Notice have been considered and approved by the relevant Director the fees and charges and formal officer decision are published on the Democratic pages of the website. The individual service areas will then update their functional web pages with the new or updated fees and charges. The process is not written specifically for fees and charges as it is only a small part of our overall democratic processes’.
16. The Council has sent me paperwork about its charging policy and has said ‘it has robust processes in place for the approval of fees and charges in accordance with its constitution and these are appropriately published both as an Officer Decision and on the website for customers to view’.
17. The Council has said that it is happy with its process and it is clear the intent was always to charge for replacement bins, so I do not consider that Mr X has been financially disadvantaged. On that basis, I do not consider the fault has caused Mr X sufficient injustice to warrant a remedy to this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is upheld and as the fault complained about did not cause Mr X significant injustice, no remedy is proposed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman