Summary: We shall not investigate Dr X’s complaint about his recycling collection. This is because the Council has agreed our invitation to provide a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Dr X complains the Council has not collected his recycling. This causes him dissatisfaction, frustration and wasted effort because the Council is instead discarding his recyclable waste with the non-recyclable refuse.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and copy correspondence from the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code. I invited the Council to provide a remedy.
5. I shared my draft decision with Dr X and considered his comments on it.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Dr X lives on a private road. After trouble with his recycling collection, the Council agreed it would collect Dr his recyclable waste if Dr X left his recycling bin on the pavement of the nearby main road from where the Council empties other recycling bins. Dr X duly took his recycling bin there. However, the Council accepts it has failed to empty the bin. When the recycling collection crew did not collect Dr X’s recycling, the general refuse collection crew would collect it and simply add the recyclable waste to the non-recyclable refuse.
7. The problem continued even after the Council’s response to Dr X’s formal complaint said the Council would remind the collection crew about Dr X’s bin.
8. I told the Council that, if we were to investigate, it is likely we would find fault by the Council causing Dr X injustice because of the Council’s seeming repeated failure to do what it had agreed. Dr X understandably wants his recyclable waste to be recycled. That expectation is reasonable as the Council provides that service. The Council’s failure to collect Dr X’s recyclable waste as agreed causes Dr X frustration, wasted effort and justified dissatisfaction on environmental grounds.
9. Dr X suggested he would like the recycling collection crew to collect his and his neighbours’ recycling bins from their houses and take them to the collection vehicle. The Council has no duty to enter private land (which Dr X’s street is) to collect bins. If the Council does this for any other collections (such as general refuse or garden waste), that still does not create any duty to do so for the recycling. So it would not be appropriate for me to invite the Council to collect the recycling from Dr X’s house. The Council’s agreement with Dr X was that it would collect recyclable waste from the main road.
10. Dr X says his neighbours in the private street are also not having their recyclable waste collected. He suggests some of them might not be able to move their recycling bins to the main road. That does not, in itself, amount to a reason for us to investigate Dr X’s complaint. If the neighbours are dissatisfied, they can contact the Council, including to seek an assisted collection if they have a disability. Any neighbour who is dissatisfied with the Council’s response could then complain to us.

Back to top

Agreed action

11. At my invitation, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Dr X for the impact of the Council’s fault. I invite the Council to do this within one month of the Ombudsman reaching a final decision on this complaint.
2. Monitor the collections of Dr X’s recycling from the main road for three months from the date of the Ombudsman’s final decision. The Council states it will monitor by a supervisor or manager attending the collection and keeping a record that the collection was completed.
12. I consider this is a proportionate remedy for the main impact of the Council’s fault. Any remaining injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.
13. I gave Dr X the opportunity to comment on this. Dr X accepted the Council’s agreed action, but expressed concern the Council might still fail to collect his recycling bin during or after the three-month monitoring period. He asked if I could include a ‘further consequence’ for the Council in case that happens.
14. I acknowledge this concern. However, it is currently speculative. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to seek ‘consequences’ for councils in any punitive sense. Nor can we ask for a remedy based on potential fault that might happen in future. If the Council were to fail to collect the recycling in future, that would be a new matter, suggesting a failure by the Council to provide the agreed remedy and to embed the proper collection of Dr X’s recycling. Dr X could contact us about any such problem in due course. Meanwhile, the action the Council has agreed is an appropriate remedy for the current problem.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We shall not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has agreed a suitable remedy for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman