London Borough of Croydon (21 018 586)
Category : Environment and regulation > Refuse and recycling
Decision : Upheld
Decision date : 21 Apr 2022
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s online ordering system for bulky waste collection or the way it dealt with Miss X’s concerns about this. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. Even if there were fault, the Council has provided a remedy and there is not a significant remaining injustice which would warrant investigation.
The complaint
- Miss X complains the Council’s online system failed to allow her to amend her bulky waste collection order. She says when she spoke with the Council directly, it unfairly requested further money. She says this meant her order was not collected and this has caused her frustration.
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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:
- there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
- any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
- we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6) and 24A(7), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council. I contacted the Council about the complaint and considered its response.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Miss X completed an online application to have a large item collected by the Council’s bulky waste collection in December 2021. She then looked to amend the order to include three more items. She says when she tried to amend the order the system crashed and removed her booking. She says she contacted the Council but it told her a further payment would be required. She says this caused delays and her item was not collected until April 2022.
- I appreciate Miss X’s frustration at the system crashing and at being asked for a further payment. The Council’s policy indicates it charges one price for up to 3 items and higher cost for up to 6 items. When Miss X sought to add a further three items this did place the request into the higher cost bracket. It is unlikely in these circumstances we would find fault in the Council’s actions in requesting further funds. We are also unlikely to be able to conclude it was at fault for any internet amendment errors.
- Even if we were to find the Council at fault for the internet error or the way they dealt with Miss X concerns when she raised them there is not sufficient remaining injustice to her to warrant investigation. The Council has now collected the item. I appreciate Miss X took the smaller items to a local waste centre because of the delay and has had to store the other item for several months. I also note Miss X’s comments about the Council incorrectly telling her the item had been collected when it had not been. I understand she would like an apology to recognise this inconvenience and an explanation. However, it would be disproportionate for us to pursue a complaint to seek an apology or explanation when the substantive matter has been resolved. There is no significant injustice remaining to Miss X which would warrant us investigating.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not sufficient evidence of fault by the Council and if there were fault there is not enough evidence of significant personal injustice remaining following the Council’s remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman