Summary: The Council was at fault, as a series of errors by its waste collection contractor meant the complainant’s bins were repeatedly missed during collections. However, the Council has taken steps to address these errors and its records do not evidence an ongoing problem. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr C.
2. Mr C complains the Council has repeatedly failed to collect his bins during the normal collection rounds.

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. 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

4. I reviewed Mr C’s correspondence with the Council, some internal records provided by the Council, and sought the Council’s comments.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mr C has mobility issues, and makes use of the Council’s assisted waste collection service. The Council provides residents with a grey or black bin for their general waste, and blue and brown bins for different types of recycling, with a collection for each bin every two weeks.
7. On 31 March 2023, Mr C complained to the Council that his grey and brown bins were not being emptied. The Council responded on 19 April. It said an officer had visited Mr C’s property, discovering he had two small grey bins instead of one large one, and that the waste crew had only been emptying one of these. It had now arranged to remove the small bins and replace them with a large one.
8. The Council also said it had established Mr C’s property was not on the assisted waste collection list. It had now rectified this.
9. The Council upheld Mr C’s complaint and apologised for the inconvenience it had caused him.
10. On 1 June, Mr C called the Council to complain his collections were still irregular. He said, on the previous day, the crew had collected his brown bin, but not the grey one, which was also due for collection. Mr C asked for a permanent solution.
11. The Council responded on 13 June to say it had discussed the matter with its contractor. It had identified three missed collections in the previous month, which it explained was because a number of crew had been off work due to illness, although they had now returned to work.
12. The Council noted Mr C had also reported that, on 3 June, crew members had arrived to carry out a re-collection of his grey bin, but did not actually then empty it. The Council said it had investigated this, and established the crew did not have the key to access the alleyway where Mr C’s bins were stored. They had spoken to Mr C to ask him to open the gate, but he had failed to do so. The re-collection had then been completed successfully on 6 June.
13. The Council upheld Mr C’s complaint again, and advised he could now approach the Ombudsman if he wished to pursue his complaint further. Mr C complained to the Ombudsman on 14 June.

Back to top

Legislative background

Household waste and recycling collections

14. 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 the type of bins or boxes people must use.
15. Councils should offer an assisted collection service to people who, because of disability, are unable to move their bins to the designated collection point. Instead, members of the waste crew should retrieve and return the bins to the storage point themselves.

Back to top

Analysis

16. I spoke to Mr C in September, and he told me that, although his grey bin collection was now satisfactory, the Council was still regularly missing his recycling collections. Mr C said he reported these missed collections by phone, and the Council would usually arrange a re-collection.
17. I also asked Mr C about the incident of 3 June, described in the Council’s complaint response. Mr C explained that, although there is a gate across the alleyway which runs behind his house, the gate is never locked because residents do not have keys for it, and therefore the Council’s explanation does not make sense.
18. I then made enquiries with the Council, asking for its records of missed collections since it responded to Mr C’s complaint on 13 June. The Council said there had been one more missed collection, on 3 August, which the crew had returned to collect on 5 August. It said it could not explain why this missed collection had happened, but did not consider it showed an ongoing problem.
19. Noting this was inconsistent with Mr C’s claim, that he was still regularly calling the Council to report missed recycling collections, I asked the Council to check again. It did so, and confirmed its system collated both online and phone reports together. The Council reiterated it had no further record of missed collections since its complaint response, apart from the one on 3 August.
20. I share the Council’s view that a single missed collection in four months does not represent a systemic problem. I do not overlook Mr C’s statement that he is still suffering regularly missed collection; but equally, I have no reason to doubt the Council’s records, having asked it to check twice. In the absence of any objective evidence, which would allow me to prefer one account over the other, then I am simply unable to draw a conclusion here.
21. This being so, I have no grounds to recommend the Council take any further steps to investigate or remedy this matter. All I can say is that Mr C should continue to report any missed collection, and make a further complaint to the Council – and if necessary, to us – if and when it becomes a problem.
22. I also told the Council what Mr C had said to me about the ‘alleyway’ issue, and asked for its comments. The Council explained there are numerous alleyways in Manchester, which have been gated over to prevent anti-social behaviour, and for which residents are given a key; however, it noted the alleyway behind Mr C’s property was not on the Council’s records of such locations, which meant the gate was privately-owned.
23. The Council said, because of this, it appeared the crew had assumed the gate was locked without actually checking it, but it accepted it was reasonable to expect them to have done this.
24. Taking these points together, I consider the Council is at fault because of the events which led it to miss a series of collections at Mr C’s property. I consider these matters caused Mr C some injustice at the time, but I note the Council has already apologised for this.
25. I also consider the Council is at fault because of the confusion over the incident of 3 June. However, this again appears to be an isolated incident, and I do not consider this represents a significant injustice to Mr C.

Back to top

Final decision

26. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice, but which the Council has already remedied.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman