Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (21 013 786)
Category : Environment and regulation > Refuse and recycling
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 31 Jan 2022
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to send the complainant 200 extra recycling bags. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
The complaint
- The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, complains the Council will not send her 200 extra recycling bags. She wants the Council to send her 200 bags.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 an investigation if we decide:
- there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
- any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
- any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the email correspondence between Ms X and the Council. I also considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- The Council gives each household one pack of 22 recycling bags every three months. If needed, people can ask for two extra packs.
- In August Ms X asked for an extra 200 bags. The Council initially said it would send the bags as it failed to notice she had asked for a large number. Ms X chased delivery of the bags and in October said she needed 500 bags. The Council then realised the quantity of bags Ms X had asked for and said it could not provide so many.
- Ms X repeated her request for 200 bags. The Council declined her request and provided details of its standard provision with an additional two packs being available on request. It explained that an extra two packs should be sufficient for large families. The Council asked why Ms X needed 200 extra bags but Ms X did not explain. The Council apologised for not recognising the size of her request at the outset. It said it should have immediately told her she could not have 200 or more bags. The Council gave general information about how other residents in the block could get bags.
- I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Although the Council initially said it would send more bags, and it could have responded more quickly in the first couple of months, it rectified the error by explaining why Ms X could not have 200 bags and by giving reasons for that decision. It made it clear that Ms X could have two more packs. The initial error does not represent fault that requires an investigation and there is no suggestion of fault in the Council’s not to give Ms X more than two extra packs.
- I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. The Council apologised for its initial error and the error has not caused an injustice requiring an investigation. And, as Ms X did not provide any reason for needing 200 extra bags, there is no evidence of injustice flowing from the decision not to send her 200 bags. In addition, injustice is only relevant if it is caused by fault.
Final decision
- We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman