Summary: We found the Council failed collect Mrs X’s recyclable waste for about four months and delayed replacing her recycling bin. In recognition of the avoidable time, trouble and distress this caused Mrs X, the Council agreed to provide a written apology and £150 financial redress.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council did not collect her recyclable waste and, while admitting it was at fault, failed to resolve the problem for about four months. The Council also took a month to replace her recycling bin.
2. Mrs X said she wasted time repeatedly reporting missed collections, trying to resolve the problem with the Council, and dealing with her recyclable waste. Mrs X sought an apology and compensation from the Council for her time and trouble and the stress caused by its failure to provide a recycling service. Mrs X also wanted to ensure other residents did not face similar problems in future.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I:

• considered Mrs X’s written complaint and supporting papers;
• talked to Mrs X about the complaint;
• asked for and considered the Council’s comments and supporting papers about the complaint; and
• shared a draft of this statement with Mrs X and the Council and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

6. Councils have a duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to collect household waste and recycling from properties in their area. The collections do not have to be weekly, and councils can decide what bins or boxes people must use. Councils may also tell their residents where they must place their bins or boxes, and when, for collection.
7. The Council contracts its waste recycling service and in November 2021 a new company took over the contract. The company collects recyclable waste every two weeks. Although the Council contracts out its waste services, it holds ultimate responsibility for ensuring the quality of the service and is accountable if things go wrong.

What happened

8. In early December 2021, Mrs X reported a missed collection for her recycling bin to the Council. Following over a month of email and telephone contact, it appeared the Council was wrongly identifying Mrs X’s home and her recycling bin collection point. Despite Mrs X sending the Council information to help it identify her home and recycling bin, when missed collections continued in January 2022, she formally complained.
9. The Council upheld the complaint accepting Mrs X had received a poor service from both its waste contractor and when communicating with its officers. The Council said a technical error meant her missed collection reports were not logged or, therefore, dealt with by its contractor. The Council confirmed its contractor had now collected her recycling and apologised to Mrs X for the frustration and inconvenience caused. Mrs X replied that her recycling remained uncollected. Mrs X also continued to report further missed collections.
10. In late January, the Council offered Mrs X a larger recycling bin, which she accepted. The Council gave Mrs X a mid-February delivery date for the new bin. Five days before the proposed delivery date, the Council collected Mrs X’s recycling. Two days later, the Council removed Mrs X’s recycling bin but did not deliver the new larger bin.
11. The Council told Mrs X different collection crews covered her address and bin collection point. This meant the crew covering Mrs X’s address did not drive past her appointed collection point. The Council said it would move Mrs X’s collection to the crew that covered the collection point for Mrs X’s recycling bin.
12. Storm Eunice then disrupted Council services, including waste collection. The Council gave Mrs X another date for the delivery of her larger recycling bin. The Council’s contractor marked the delivery as complete, but Mrs X did not receive the bin. The Council apologised and then told Mrs X it had ordered its contractor to evidence delivery, which would show if it was again using the wrong location. One month after the original delivery date, Mrs X confirmed receipt of the new larger recycling bin.
13. Meanwhile, Mrs X had escalated her complaint raising both continuing missed collections and the failure to provide a larger recycling bin. In response, the Council said, having found problems in its contractor’s computer records, it should not have relied on them in saying Mrs X’s recycling had been collected (see paragraph 9). The Council also said it was dealing with the contractor’s record keeping at contract and management meetings. And it had reminded officers to check information and ensure its accuracy before responding to waste collection complaints. The Council said Mrs X should have received the larger recycling bin on removal of her original bin. Its contractor had repeatedly advised Council officers the new bin had been delivered and so it had also raised this issue at contract and management meetings. The Council said it should not have taken a month to deliver the new bin. The Council accepted Mrs X had received a poor service up to mid-March 2022. It upheld the complaint and apologised to Mrs X.
14. Mrs X, finding the Council’s response unsatisfactory, and not wanting other residents to face similar problems, complained to the Ombudsman.

The Council’s response to the Ombudsman

15. The Council said its new contractor made a few service changes in November 2021, one of which affected Mrs X’s recycling collection round. Mrs X’s home was then mistaken for another property in the waste computer records. The Council said it did not accept all missed collection reports. For example, if the computer records showed a bin as not presented, or as too heavy, or as contaminated, it would not accept a missed report. Here, the records showed contaminated bins at the property it had wrongly identified as Mrs X’s home.
16. The Council also said the time taken to resolve the missed collections was in part due to several changes to the recycling crew. When crew members changed, there had been a failure to share relevant information about Mrs X’s home and bin collection point (see paragraph 11). And, while the ‘in cab’ system showed Mrs X’s collection point, the issue was only finally resolved after a site visit by and intervention of a contract supervisor. The Council said it had since introduced a ‘memo system’ to improve communication. So, all crew members now received written information about collection rounds and changes which they had to sign.
17. The Council said there had been a gap in ordering new bins when it changed contractor in November 2021. This had led to a backlog and then some bins had been out of stock. This had delayed provision of a new recycling bin for Mrs X. Its contractor had then failed to identify the ‘works order’ for Mrs X needed both the removal of an existing bin and the delivery of a new bin. So, the contractor wrongly completed the order on removing Mrs X’s existing bin. The Council said it had since reminded collection crews to read any notes to ensure they fully understood each order.
18. The Council said its customer services team now had direct links with officers in the waste team when dealing with residents’ waste concerns. Customer services also had Team Managers responsible for service areas, including waste, and had introduced ‘escalation points and contacts’ to help in successfully resolving problems. The Council said it now received weekly reports about ‘repeat miss’ collections. And its officers emailed its contractor, in line with the escalation point/contact, to ensure ‘repeat miss’ cases were investigated. Such investigations also included a site visit. ‘Repeat miss’ cases were also discussed at its regular contractor meetings. The Council also said its waste team received complaints training in October 2022.

Consideration

19. There is no dispute that November 2021 changes to the relevant waste recycling round badly affected Mrs X’s collection service (see paragraphs 9 and 13). The four months that followed were no doubt frustrating and distressing for Mrs X. I therefore found both fault and resulting injustice here.
20. On the evidence seen so far, what went wrong for Mrs X arose because separate recycling collection rounds covered her home and bin collection point. And crew errors, including poor communication, delayed the effective identification of why there were service problems. The collection problems then worsened with the removal of Mrs X’s recycling bin without provision of a larger replacement bin. The evidence did not show what happened to Mrs X was part of widespread problem with the Council’s waste recycling collection service. However, the communication and monitoring changes introduced by the Council (see paragraphs 16 to 18) should help ensure it quickly resolves any future similar cases. I therefore saw no need now to suggest service improvements to the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. I found both fault by the Council with its waste recycling service and resulting injustice to Mrs X. The Council, in responding to Mrs X’s complaint to the Ombudsman, accepted the circumstances here justified both an apology and financial redress. The Council proposed a payment of £150, which I found proportionate, appropriate and reasonable given the circumstances of this case. And, the Council agreed, within 30 working days of this statement, to:

• send Mrs X a further written apology; and
• pay Mrs X £150,

in recognition of her avoidable time, trouble and distress caused by its four-month failure to provide a suitable waste recycling collection service.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I completed my investigation, finding fault causing injustice, on the Council agreeing the recommendations at paragraph 21.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman