Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly collect recycling and handled his complaint poorly. He said this caused stress and frustration, and has taken a lot of his time with no resolution. We find the Council at fault, and this caused Mr X injustice. We are satisfied the Council has apologised for the injustice. The Council has agreed to make improvements to its service.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr X, complained the Council failed to properly collect recycling and handled his complaint poorly.
2. Mr X said this caused stress and frustration, and has taken a lot of his time but got no resolution. He also said he faced hostility from neighbours who felt he was responsible for the failed collections, and this ruined good neighbour relations.

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 the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
6. I considered the relevant legislation and policies, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Recycling collections

7. Councils have a duty of care to collect and dispose of household waste (Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 45). The Council also provides a weekly recycling collection.

Complaints procedure

8. The Council’s complaints procedure says the service team for the matter complained about will investigate a complaint at stage one of the process.
9. The procedure says if the Council agrees with complainant, a stage one response “may” include, and a stage two response “will” include:
• what the Council is going to do to put it right;
• when it will be put right by;
• an apology; and,
• what the Council will do differently to prevent a repeat.
10. The procedure says if the Council does not agree with a complainant, it will provide a clear explanation detailing the reason why.

What happened

11. Mr X lives in a block of flats. He led a community project for residents to regenerate their communal garden. This project led to the creation of a new bin store. The residents got new bins for the bin store in July 2022.
12. Before the regeneration project, the Council had provided residents with clear sacks to put their recycling in. Filled clear sacks would then go in the old recycling bins. After the project, the Council provided reusable recycling bags for residents to transport their recycling to the bins, so the recycling could be put loose in the bins.
13. A week after the new bins were provided, Mr X emailed the Council officer (Officer A) he had been dealing without throughout the project. He said the residents needed more bins. Officer A suggested the Council provided bigger bins. Mr X agreed. Officer A did not respond. The bigger bins were delivered shortly after.
14. In late-August, another Council officer (Officer B) called Mr X. Mr X told Officer B that the recycling bins were not being fully emptied. He said some residents were still using the clear recycling bags while others were putting loose recycling in the bins. Mr X said the Council’s subcontractors, who were collecting the recycling, had only been removing the clear bags. He said they had not removed all the loose recycling so it was building up. Mr X said the subcontractors told him they were not able to fully empty the new bigger bins because the vehicle did not have a lift to lift the bins to the mouth of the truck.
15. Officer B told Mr X he would sort this out. Officer B asked Mr X to send him the email thread between him and Officer A. Mr X did this.
16. Mr X emailed Officer B in late August, and again in late September. Officer B replied the next day. Officer B said the Council had changed the collection crew to a more suitable team who could empty the recycling bins properly. Officer B apologised, and said he had asked that collections would be monitored more closely.
17. A few days later, Mr X emailed Officer B again, saying recycling was still not being collected by an appropriate truck. The Council sent its subcontractors a reminder to empty the bins correctly. The subcontractors told the Council they were closely monitoring collections.
18. In early October, Mr X left Officer B a voicemail, chasing him up. Mr X then emailed Officer B. A few days later, Mr X called Officer B again. There was no answer.
19. Mr X complained to the Council about not collecting all of the recycling, and about poor communication from Officer A and Officer B.
20. The Council’s stage one complaint response was written by Officer B. Officer B said Officer A had been on extended leave so did not respond to Mr X’s emails. Officer B said according to the Council’s records, there had been no further issues.
21. Mr X asked the Council to review his complaint. He said the Council had not apologised, and it was inappropriate for Officer B to respond to his complaint given that his complaint was partly about Officer B.
22. The Council’s stage two complaint response apologised for Officer A’s lack of response to Mr X. It said the Council had asked officers to carry out spot checks on collection days to make sure there were no further issues. The Council said it was normal procedure for the manager of the team complained about (in this case, Officer B) to respond to complaints.
23. The Council apologised for failing to meet residents’ expectations. It said communication could have been improved, and apologised for this.
24. Mr X then brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Recycling collections

25. Mr X complains that the Council’s subcontractors do not fully or properly empty the recycling bins each week. He says they remove the clear sacks of recycling, but do not remove all the loose recycling.
26. Mr X complains about the occasions when the Council collected some but not all of the recycling. It is clear that Mr X reported to the Council that it failed to collect all of the recycling on a number of occasions.
27. The Council accepts that its subcontractors have, at times, used an inappropriate vehicle to collect the recycling. This means recycling was only partially collected. This is fault. I find this fault caused Mr X injustice in that it caused him unnecessary stress and frustration.
28. I have seen no evidence that the subcontractors monitored the situation more closely, as Officer B told Mr X in September. Also, the Council’s stage two response said it asked officers to carry out spot checks on collection days to make sure there were no ongoing problems with missed or improperly collected recycling collections. The Council is unable to provide any evidence of these spot checks. Therefore, I cannot say these happened. This is fault.
29. I find this fault caused Mr X injustice in that the Council’s assurances raised Mr X’s expectations, and the lack of promised spot checks caused frustration.

The Council’s complaint responses

30. The Council’s stage one complaint response did not apologise to Mr X despite identifying some fault. The Council accepts that it should have apologised at stage one.
31. Further, the Council accepts that its stage one response should have given Mr X more details to explain Officer A’s out of office situation. It also accepts that, as a minimum, it should have upheld Mr X’s complaint at stage one (it was logged on the Council’s records as ‘not upheld’). And that it should have explained this to Mr X. I therefore find the Council’s stage one complaint response was not in line with its complaints procedure. This is fault.
32. I also find that the stage one response did not address the part of Mr X’s complaint about Officer B’s poor communication. This is fault. Complaint responses should address each point of complaint unless there is a good reason not to. I find no good reason for the stage one complaint not to have addressed this part of Mr X’s complaint.
33. I find the faults caused Mr X injustice in that they caused unnecessary distress and frustration.
34. Mr X complains that Officer B should not have responded at stage one because his complaint was partly about Officer B’s communication.
35. The Council’s complaints procedure says the service team for the matter complained about will investigate a complaint at stage one. Officer B is the manager of the area complained about, so I cannot find the Council at fault for this.

The Council’s communication

36. The Council’s stage two response found that Officer B had responded to all of Mr X’s communication. I do not agree. Further, in response to Ombudsman enquiries, the Council did not accept Officer B communicated poorly with Mr X. However, it has provided no evidence of Officer B’s responses to Mr X’s emails in August (he sent two in August), September, and October, or two voicemails Mr X left Officer B in October.
37. The Council says Officer B chose not to respond to Mr X’s email in October because Mr X said he was going to make a complaint. The Council says in hindsight Officer B should have responded to Mr X. I agree.
38. While the Ombudsman does not expect council officers to respond to every single email they receive, there is an expectation that councils will maintain good communication with service users. I cannot say this happened on this occasion because the evidence does not support it. I therefore find the Council at fault for its poor communication.
39. I find this fault caused Mr X injustice in that it caused unnecessary distress and frustration.

Back to top

Agreed action

40. The Council has apologised to Mr X in writing for:
• the unnecessary distress and frustration caused by failing to properly empty the bins;
• the raised expectations and frustration caused by promising spot checks which did not happen;
• the unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration caused by the Council’s stage one complaint response; and,
• the unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration caused by Officer B’s poor communication.
41. I am satisfied this apology remedies the injustice caused to Mr X.
42. Within eight weeks of this decision, the Council has already agreed to do a spot check on all of the recycling bins at the block of flats concerned, shortly after the recycling is collected. The Council has agreed to provide the Ombudsman with photographic, date-stamped evidence that all of the bins were fully and properly emptied. If the recycling bins have clearly not been fully and properly collected, the Council has agreed it will tell the Ombudsman what it plans to do to rectify this situation.
43. Within three months of this decision, the Council has already agreed to remind all relevant staff in the departments involved here that they are to respond to complaints in line with its complaints procedure.
44. In arriving at these recommendations, I considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

46. I have completed my investigation. I uphold Mr X’s complaint because I find the Council at fault and this caused Mr X injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to prevent a future recurrence. I am satisfied the Council has apologised for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman