Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end Mr X’s trade waste collection. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council ending his waste collection service which he has used for two years. He says the Council was unreasonable in requiring that the collection should have smaller containers and that he should present them at the kerbside.

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 or may decide not to continue with 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr x had a service agreement for the Council to collect his trade waste from outside the rear premises where his organisation is based. The waste bin was an 1100litre large bin and the collectors had to manhandle the bin along an unsurfaced back lane to the vehicle.
6. In late 2022 the Council informed Mr X that the collection point was unsuitable and presented a risk to the health and safety of the workforce. It said that it had tried to get the owner of the lane to create a reasonable surface and fill in potholes but this had not succeeded. It informed Mr X that it could provide 2 or 3 smaller containers. Mr X says that he was not prepared to change the location of the bins but may have accepted the smaller containers. However, the Council says it received no agreement from Mr X and the final collection was made in early 2023 when the service was ended and the credit on his agreement payment refunded.
7. Mr X had in the meantime complained to his local Member of Parliament. After making enquiries the MP supported a formal complaint on Mr X’s behalf. The Council initially provided him with a misspelt email address to communicate with but this was noted and corrected in a short time. the complaint outcome was that the Council had informed Mr X of the changes it needed to make but that he had not sent any agreement with them and so the service was ended.
8. Councils as waste authorities have powers to determine what size of receptacles must be used by service users and where these should be placed. These powers are in the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 s.47 which sets out what the authority my require in terms of collection of commercial waste. The Council had authority to tell Mr X what its requirements were if he wished to continue the waste collection service and it is clear that it was not prepared to negotiate in terms of its contractors using the lane which it determined was unsafe due to its surface.
9. Mr X is claiming repayment of costs which he incurred following the ending of the collection service. Because the Council had powers under the legislation to end the service agreement and it gave him reasonable notice that it would do so I can see no reason why it should re-imburse him for any alternative collection he may have used. The error in providing the incorrect email address for his formal complaint did not make any difference to the outcome of the decision itself.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to end Mr X’s trade waste collection. There is insufficient evidence of fault which would warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman