Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about recycling containers and the way the Council responded to the complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, says the Council failed to follow its complaints process and has refused to provide him with a recycling box with a lid. Mr X wants a box with a lid, an apology, compensation and for staff to be disciplined and retrained.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council. This includes the complaint correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Mr X made in reply to a draft of this decision.

Back to top

My assessment

4. Mr X told the Council that his insert was not returned after the collection on 1 February. The insert was a plastic box which slotted into the top of the bin and stored card and paper for recycling. Mr X accused the crew of deliberately taking the insert.
5. The Council told Mr X the inserts were no longer being manufactured and it was using boxes for paper and card instead. It provided Mr X with a recycling box.
6. Mr X complained the box does not have a lid. He said an open box would lead to rubbish being strewn around, would get wet and is open to foxes. The Council said that if he wanted a lid he could buy a recycling bin. The Council explained the bins were available at a discounted price of £16. The discount ended on 31 March and from 1 April the cost is £20. A councillor told Mr X the cost price is £50. The councillor also said there was no evidence the crew had taken the insert. He suggested the insert may have fallen into the lorry or been returned to the wrong household.
7. The Council told Mr X it had examined the CCTV and there was no evidence it was responsible for the loss of the insert. The Council said the crews or cleansing teams will clear up any litter. It also explained that boxes are used throughout the country. It confirmed he could not have a replacement insert, or a lidded box, but he can buy a lidded bin.
8. I will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council found no evidence the crew had taken the insert and it would be impossible for us to find out what happened. The Council has explained why it cannot replace the insert but it has provided a box as an alternative. Alternatively, if Mr X thinks a lidded receptacle is better, he can buy a bin. The law says it is for councils to decide what type of receptacle people must use and it is not for us to tell councils what to provide. The Council has provided Mr X with two options with regards to recycling paper and card.
9. There is no suggestion of fault with the complaint handling. The Council responded appropriately to Mr X’s emails and complaints. Mr X says he has not had any response but there was extensive correspondence between Mr X and the Council and I have seen the Council’s final complaint response.
10. I also will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of injustice. I appreciate Mr X would like a receptable with a lid and a lidded bin will cost him £16 or £20. There is no suggestion this charge flows from Council fault but, even if it did, a dispute over £20 does not warrant an investigation. Mr X agrees it is a small amount of money so says there is no need for the Council to quibble over it; but, the cost relates to my assessment about injustice and does not relate to the Council’s decision about its recycling provision.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and insufficient evidence of injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman