Summary: Mr X complained the Council asked him to pay for a new bin, which was damaged by its operatives. He says the Council delayed and did not reply to his complaints. We found there was fault by the Council in its communications. It has agreed a remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall call Mr X, complains the Council failed to properly investigate his complaint that its operatives damaged his bin, and it is now expecting him to pay for a new one. He also complains the Council failed to respond to his complaint according to its policy, leading to time and trouble.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. I have investigated the Councils handling of Mr X’s complaint. While we would not normally consider complaint about a Council’s handling of a complaint as separate issue, it appears there was delay and poor communication here.
3. I have not investigated Mr X’s complaint that the Council damaged his bin. This is because there is insufficient evidence to determine what happened to the bin.
4. I have not investigated the Council’s response to Mr X’s Freedom of Information requests. The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So, where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.
5. I consider it is reasonable for Mr X to complain to the ICO about the Council’s response to his Freedom of Information requests.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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

8. I have considered the complaint and the copy correspondence provided by the complainant. I have considered the documents the Council provided. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Mr X says his bin was damaged in June 2021. He contacted the Council and asked for a new bin, but it said he must pay £40.
10. Mr X challenged this because he said the Council’s operatives caused the damage when collecting refuse. Mr X complained to the Council in July. He said that the bin was not damaged before the refuse collection. He made a Freedom of Information (FOI) request about the number of bins reported damaged by the refuse collection operatives, and by residents.
11. In its complaint responses at stage one and two, the Council maintained that the bin was already damaged. It said the crew had not reported on their round sheets that they had damaged the bin and the street scene service manager had checked the vehicle’s CCTV which showed the bin was already damaged.
12. On 29 September 2021 Mr X asked the Council for a copy of the round sheet and a copy of the CCTV recording. He said he had not had the FOI information he had requested. He said he wanted to take the matter to stage three of the Council’s complaint procedure if it did not provide the information.
13. The Council received Mr X’s request on 4 October and said it would respond by 26 October 2021.The Council said the complaints team and the street scene team would reply. It sent Mr X information about the stage three complaints procedure.
14. The Council discussed internally whether it could disclose the CCTV recording to Mr X. It did not consider that it could because it showed its operative. It sought legal advice. It prepared a redacted a copy of the round sheet, but it does not appear that it sent this. The Council did not respond to Mr X’s request, or his complaint.
15. Mr X chased a response on 27 October 2021 and asked the Council to register his stage three complaint. He said that the Council was causing him stress. Mr X also called the Council. The Council emailed him to confirm it had logged a stage three complaint and would reply by 23 November. But it did not respond.
16. Mr X called the Council on 23 November. He also emailed it to that it said would register his complaint at stage three, but he had no response. So now he was complaining about the lack of response as well as the bin issue.
17. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman about the Council’s failure to respond. He said it had not kept to its service standards. He felt the Council was ignoring him.
18. On 26 November the Council said it would register Mr X’s stage three complaint. It apologised for its delay and said it would respond by 6 December. Mr X replied the Council should ensure officers were trained about responding to complaints. He also suggested the Council should review its bin replacement policy as it was causing more refuse to be left in other places.
19. The Council did not meet its 6 December deadline to respond. On 14 December the Council told Mr X its managing director had asked the service for a report, which it would send to Mr X by 24 December.
20. The Council completed a report on 21 December, but it did not respond to Mr X. He chased the Council on 29 December 2021 and again in early January.
21. On 5 January we asked the Council to provide the Ombudsman with information regarding the complaint including an update about Mr X’s stage three complaint which he had requested in September 2021. The Council sent some information on 19 January but confirmed the Council had not yet replied at stage three.
22. On 25 January 2022 the Council’s managing director sent Mr X a copy of the stage three report. The report gave a chronology of events. It noted the Council sought legal advice about disclosing the CCTV footage which caused delay. It stated the Council could not provide a copy of the recording due to its data protection protocol. The complainant investigator could not view the CCTV record now, due to a fault in the system. So, it could not satisfy Mr X’s wish to see it. But the street scene manager had viewed the recording earlier and confirmed the bin was damaged before it was lifted to the refuse vehicle.
23. The Council accepted that it had not responded within its timescales and should have kept Mr X informed. It said it should have concluded the complaints and FOI processes separately. It noted this caused additional aggravation for Mr X. However, it did not consider the Council should investigate further at stage three and the FOI request should be completed separately.
24. Mr X commented on the Council’s response that it had not provided evidence to him and now could not do so. In his view the Council should assume in his favour and replace his bin. He also said that officers did not know the Council’s complaints procedure and no lessons had been learnt.

Analysis

25. There was significant delay by the Council in responding to Mr X’s stage three complaint. Mr X raised this in late September, if the Council could not provide certain information. The Council did not provide the information, and did not respond as it said it would. It did not register his complaint then. After it registered his complaint on 27 November it failed to meet three response deadlines it gave. It completed a report on 21 December, but took more than a month to send it.
26. The Council sent its report to Mr X late in January 2022. Given that his first request was in late September 2021 this is a significant delay, putting Mr X to time and trouble, as he chased the Council many times. He told the Council it was causing him stress.
27. It appears there was discussion between officers about what the Council could or could not disclose and why, and it sought legal advice. But the Council did not advise or update Mr X. The Council cannot view the recording now, due to a fault. This caused Mr X frustration and likely outrage because the Council had referred to checking it, then refused to disclose and now it is not available to anyone to verify. This left Mr X uncertain about the evidence the Council considered.
28. The Council appears to accept that it handled communication poorly as it should still have ensured that it responded properly to the complaint as well as the FOI request. However, aside from an apology it has not considered a remedy.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. The Council has agreed to my recommendation that, within 6 weeks of my final decision it will:
• apologise to Mr X for its failure to manage his complaint and for its delays.
• pay Mr X £50 for his time and trouble in pursuing a response to his complaint.
• remind officers that they should ensure they respond to complaints without delay and in accordance with the Council’s complaints procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

30. The Council has agreed to remedy the fault causing injustice to Mr X. I have completed my investigation and closed the complaint

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman