London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (21 008 286)

Category : Environment and regulation > Refuse and recycling

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 01 Feb 2022

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about waste collection services. This is because there is a body better placed to deal with the complaint. Also, it is not a good use of public resources for us to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

The complaint

  1. Mr Y complains the Council has repeatedly failed to replace his bins correctly during refuse waste collections, leading to the damage and loss of the bins, which he has later replaced. He also complains about the Council’s lack of response to his complaint.
  2. Mr Y says he has replaced the bins at his own cost and he has been frustrated at the lack of response from the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Ombudsman investigates complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
  2. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the information Mr Y and the Council provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

  1. Mr Y first complained to the Council about his bin lid being missing after a refuse collection in February 2021. While the Council acknowledged the report of a missing bin lid, Mr Y had to chase the complaint three further times before it acknowledged his complaint. He chased the Council for a response to his complaint twice before contacting us in September.
  2. We asked the Council to respond to Mr Y’s complaint in September. The Council asked Mr Y for information about his claim for the cost of the new bin, which Mr Y provided. Mr Y then asked the Council for an update in November, including for its complaint response. As he had not received a response to his complaint, Mr Y approached us again in January 2022.
  3. The Council responded to Mr Y’s complaint in February. It said it had raised a claim with the waste collection company who collected the refuse on its behalf. It said it had asked the waste collection company to contact Mr Y directly about the claim for compensation. It also apologised for its failure to respond adequately to the complaint and said it was carrying out a review of its processes to prevent the problem from recurring.

Analysis

  1. The waste collection company who act on the Council’s behalf and its insurer are considering Mr Y’s claim. As it is a claim for compensation or damages because of this company’s alleged negligence.
  2. If the company disputes liability for the costs of the repairs Mr Y may consider continuing the claim through the courts. The courts can decide who is liable for the costs and if necessary, award damages.
  3. We cannot decide liability or award damages. Consequently, any claims for costs for replacement bins are matters better dealt with by the courts. It is therefore reasonable for Mr Y to continue his claim through the insurers or the courts. We will not investigate this complaint.
  4. Mr Y has also complained about the Council’s lack of response to his complaint. However, as we are not dealing with the substantive issue in Mr Y’s complaint, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate the council’s complaint handling. Consequently, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because there is a body better placed to consider this complaint. Also it is not a good use of public resources for us to investigate complaints about complaint procedures if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings