Summary: Mr B says the Council failed to empty an Underground Refuse System (URS) at his property, which caused build up of waste on the street. This happened on several occasions. Mr B worries about the environmental impact of that. It was not through Council fault that it could not empty the URS. The Council met its legal duty to collect household waste, by regularly collecting the waste from the street. The Council has apologised for the disruption to normal service and is increasing its fleet of specialist URS vehicles to prevent future problems. The Council has taken sufficient action in response to the problem.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr B, says on several occasions since May 2020 the Council failed to empty the Underground Refuse System (URS) containers used by his apartment block. This means Mr B cannot use the URS and has had to dispose of his waste elsewhere, despite paying council tax for the waste collection service. Mr B says other people have simply left their waste beside the full containers, with items such as dirty nappies lying around for weeks. Mr B worries about the environmental impact of the failed waste collections, particularly with plastic waste getting into the environment. Mr B says the waste attracted animals as he often found bags ripped open. Mr B believes he should receive a discount in his council tax to recognise the failed service.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

4. I considered:
• Information provided by Mr B, including during a telephone conversation.
• Information provided by the Council in response to my enquiries.
• The Environmental Protection Act 1990.
5. Mr B 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

6. Mr B lives in an apartment block. The apartments have a URS (Underground Refuse System). These are fixed waste collection points on the street with underground storage units, so the waste collects below ground. The Council must empty the URS containers with specialist collection vehicles.
7. Between May 2020 and July 2021 there were various periods where the Council did not empty the URS on time, one of these periods ran for several months. The underground units became full, and people left their waste on the street beside the URS. Mr B says there were times the Council did not collect this surface waste for weeks.
8. The Council has three URS vehicles. Two vehicles in daily operation and a third vehicle for cover as required. The spare vehicle is old, a replacement is on order so this old vehicle could be entirely removed from the Council’s fleet, but the replacement is taking longer than expected.
9. One of the operational vehicles had a fault and did not meet current emissions standards. The Council had to remove the vehicle from service, and decided it was not economical to repair. The Council could cover the collection service with one vehicle working double shifts.
10. The Council says this worked at first, but then the second operational vehicle developed faults. The Council says there is only one manufacturer of parts for these specialist vehicles, so repairs took time.
11. The Council says while the vehicles were out of service the waste operatives used standard refuse vehicles to collect the build-up of surface waste around the underground bins. The Council says it provided a minimum of one vehicle daily to visit the site. The Council also paid overtime over the weekend to continue the daily collections of the surface rubbish.
12. Mr B says it could be weeks before the Council collected the surface rubbish. Mr B has provided photographs of waste build up on the street around the URS containers, some are days apart. It is not obvious it is the same rubbish. It is possible the Council was collecting daily, but new rubbish mounted up daily.
13. The Council says it has three vehicles, though one is old and used only for cover. The Council says one of the operational vehicles was out of service, and then the second vehicle also had problems. It is unclear why the Council could not use the third cover vehicle over these periods.
14. Mr B says the Council did not tell residents about the issues. The Council said in response to Mr B’s complaint that it told the Management Team at Mr B’s apartment block. I asked for evidence of this, to which the Council says it communicated the matters via its website and responded to individual complaints from residents and landlords as they occurred. I have seen no evidence of the Council communicating the issues to the managers of Mr B’s apartment block.
15. Because the vehicle that is on order is taking so long, the Council is now repairing the vehicle it had to remove from service. The return of this vehicle to the fleet is imminent. The Council is also acting to buy a fifth vehicle.

Was there fault causing injustice?

16. I must now consider whether there was fault in the Council’s actions, which caused Mr B an injustice.
17. There was an impact on Mr B, and all residents using the URS system, while the Council could not empty the URS containers. Mr B is environmentally conscious, so says he does not produce as much waste as other households. However, it was inconvenient to store dry waste until it could be disposed of, and to take food waste further afield to other available bins. Other residents simply deposited their waste on the street by the full URS containers. This caused Mr B added concern about the environmental impact of such actions.
18. However, I cannot say this injustice was directly caused by the Council’s actions. It was outside the Council’s control that its URS vehicles were out of service at the same time. Therefore, the disruption to normal service is not caused by any fault of the Council. The Council’s legal duty is to collect household waste, and it continued to do so by collecting the surface waste on a regular basis. Therefore, the Council met its legal commitments.
19. You could consider the waste on the street to be fly tipping. The Council’s service standard is to remove fly-tips by the end of the next working day. By visiting daily, the Council met this service standard.
20. Therefore, while I appreciate Mr B’s concerns about the environmental impact of waste on the street, I cannot say there was fault in the Council’s actions.
21. The Council has learned from these periods where its vehicles were out of service at the same time and is increasing its fleet of vehicles. This should lower the risk of future problems.
22. The Council has apologised to Mr B for the disruption to its normal service and for the upset and inconvenience caused to Mr B. I am satisfied that is appropriate action in response.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was no fault by the Council. It met its legal duty to collect household waste and apologised to Mr B for the upset and inconvenience caused by its disruption to normal service.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman