Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s trial scheme for collecting her household waste, or its removal of a public litter bin. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation and investigation would not achieve any different outcomes for Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X lives on a road where the Council and local Councillors agreed to change the bin collection process in 2020 from wheeled bins to bin bags, as a trial. Ms X complains the Council:
1. failed to consult her about the waste collection trial scheme in 2020;
2. introduced a waste collection scheme which does not work;
3. will not change the scheme until local Councillors have met with the Council’s officers;
4. has failed to replace a public litter bin.
2. Ms X says residents’ rubbish is in the road many days of the week. She says there has been an increase in fly-tipping in the area, by residents and possibly others. She believes a rodent infestation in her property was caused by the new bin collection scheme and the infestation led to damage to her house. Ms X says the matter has caused her financial loss. She says having to report ongoing incidents of fly-tipping and litter, plus correspondence and meetings, has cost her time and caused her trouble. Ms X finds it stressful when rubbish is not collected and her mental health is affected. She wants the Council to:

• immediately stop the waste bag trial;
• consult with her and other residents about solutions to the problems;
• take responsibility for the rodent problems and check the area for pests free of charge;
• apologise to all affected;
• compensate her for the pest control costs, damage to her property and the distress caused;
• find a better way to work with Councillors
• put at least one public litter bin back on her street

3. Ms X also wants Councillors to reply to her emails and act in her best interests.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information from Ms X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X says the Council failed to consult her about the waste collection trial scheme in 2020. Ms X has complained to us about this in October 2022, over two years after the event. We expect people to complain to us within 12 months of them knowing about the matter complained of. This part of the complaint is late. We will only investigate a late complaint if we consider there is a good reason to do so. There is no such good reason here. I say this because, even if we did investigate the consultation issue, we are unlikely to find Council fault. It is not fault for a council to change a waste collection scheme to a different one. The Council is entitled to choose how it considers it can best fulfil its waste collection service for residents.
9. Ms X says the trial waste collection scheme does not work. The Council has been assessing the scheme and is due to consult with Councillors on whether it should continue. It says the assessment period has been prolonged by its introduction coinciding with the disruption caused by the first of the COVID-19 lockdowns, and subsequent similar interruptions. Officers say there had not been a period of ‘business as usual’ to allow it to do its assessment. I recognise Ms X is frustrated by the time the assessment has taken, but prior to 2022, officers did not have a period of normal service to do the assessment. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in not yet completing its assessment to warrant investigation.
10. Ms X says the Council will not change the trial scheme until local Councillors have met with its officers. She says this has been delayed for several further months this year. The scheme was introduced after consultation with Councillors so requires their input before any decisions are made. There is not enough evidence that it is Council fault which has led to the further delay in the process here to justify investigation. The Council says it has sought to speak with Councillors about the trial scheme since May 2022 but it has not been able to set up a meeting by the time of Ms X’s complaint to officers in August 2022, despite chasing the matter. This has added about another three months to the trial period.
11. Had we investigated the trial waste collection matter and found fault and injustice, the likely outcome we may have sought would have been for the Council to review the current trial waste collection process. The Council has already stated its intention to do this, with the input of Councillors, as soon as it can be organised. Therefore, investigation of this matter would also not achieve a different outcome for Ms X here.
12. Ms X says the Council has removed a public litter bin. The Council says the bin is close to a development site and was removed because it was causing an obstruction. I recognise Ms X disagrees with the officers’ decision that there is no alternative location for the bin. But we can only go behind a council’s decision where there is evidence of fault in the decision‑making process which, but for that fault, would have resulted in a different outcome. To inform their decision, officers went to the road and looked for alternative locations to replace the removed bin. They took the view no suitable location was available while the development was still being built. That was a decision they were entitled to make. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process here to allow us to go behind the outcome here.
13. The Council has said it will review the location of a street litter bin once the development is done. It says it is monitoring street litter by regular visits, at least every fortnight. As with the waste bag trial, if we were to investigate the street litter bin matter and found fault and injustice, the likely outcome we may have sought would have been for the Council to review its decision. The Council has already expressed its intention to do this. So investigation of this matter would also not achieve a different outcome for Ms X.
14. Ms X has also raised concerns about Councillors, including them not replying to her emails. Councillors are elected Members. We cannot investigate Councillors because they are not employed by the Council so it does not have power over or responsibility for their actions or inactions. Any complaint about the Councillors would be a separate matter, which Ms X may wish to pursue with the Councillors themselves in the first instance. If they do not reply, or a reply is not to Ms X’s satisfaction, she may decide to refer the issue to the Council’s officer who deals with complaints about elected Members.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough evidence of Council fault in the introduction and current retention of the waste collection trial, or in its decision to not yet replace a street bin, to warrant an investigation; and
• investigation of the matters would not achieve different outcomes for Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman