Summary: Ms D says the Council repeatedly failed to collect her household waste. We have found evidence of fault by the Council, upheld the complaint and completed the investigation because the Council has offered a reasonable remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Ms D) says the Council has repeatedly failed to collect her household waste during 2023.

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 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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 have considered the information provided by Ms D. I asked the Council questions and examined its response.
5. I understand Ms D made a large volume of calls to the Council in 2023 to log and pursue the case. I have not listed those calls, but I am aware they took place.
6. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. On 16 February 2023 Ms D reported to the Council the waste at her property had not been collected. She contacted the Council again on 22 February, the Council noted the next day that collections for the property were not showing on its collection round data. It arranged for the bin to be emptied. On 2 March the Council noted it had confirmed which waste crew should empty the bin and the site had been cleared. On the 3 March it further stated the property had been added to the collection list and a note sent to the crew reminding them to empty the bins.
8. At the end of March Ms D reported another missed collection. On 29 March the Council told Ms D it had now emptied the bins and it “monitors all collections to ensure they take place”. The case was closed. The next week Ms D reported another missed collection and complained to the Council about the repeated failure. On 7 April the Council told Ms D it had investigated and for some “unknown reason” collections for her property had “dropped off the system” so there had not been a crew appointed to carry out regular collections. This had been rectified and the Council apologised.
9. In mid-May Ms D logged another missed collection report with the Council. She complained and asked why the problem was ongoing and how it would be resolved. On 24 May the Council sent a response which was standard wording and identical to that sent on 29 March. Ms D continued to have missed collections and reported them to the Council in June. On 22 June the Council wrote to Ms D. It said there had been a restructure in June which might be the cause of the missed collections. It was liaising with its IT team to update its records. It upheld her complaint. At the end of June Ms D pursued her complaint and stated the bins continued to overflow with waste because of the missed collections. They attracted flies and smelt. She was keeping recycling items in her property as there was no space in the bin. I have not seen the response to this by the Council but I understand it upheld the complaint again.
10. On 4 July the Council responded to more missed collection reports by sending Ms D its standard comments (as sent twice before). Ms D made further reports about missed collections in August and twice in October. On 16 November Ms D told the Council the problem persisted, and the Council had promised to carry out monitoring after her formal complaint and this had not happened. The next day the Council told Ms D she could pursue her case with the Ombudsman.
11. At the start of December, the Ombudsman contacted the Council because Ms D had logged a complaint and we needed to check if the case had been through the complaints process. The Council said it had considered the case in summer 2023 “unsuccessfully” and in November it assured Ms D the service would improve. It accepted that had not happened. It had now raised the case with the Service Area Manager and the Council would carry out monitoring of the waste collections. It also offered £100 redress for Ms D.
12. From 19 December the Council started regular monitoring to ensure Ms D’s waste was collected. 11 visits took place up to 27 February 2024 and each time the bin was successfully emptied on the scheduled collection day.

What should have happened

13. When the Council receives a report about a missed household waste collection it logs a service request. The bins should be emptied as soon as possible. The Council says that when a resident makes repeat reports about missed collections a formal complaint is usually raised. The Council has the option to carry out monitoring to check whether a resident’s waste is being collected.

Was there fault by the Council

14. There is evidence of significant delay by the council. By the start of April, it should have been apparent to the Council there was a recurring issue with missed collections. At that point I consider it reasonable for the Council to have escalated the case and put in place monitoring to check the issue was resolved. Instead, Ms D had to wait over eight months for monitoring to start.
15. The Council’s response to contact from Ms D was extremely poor. It sent her standard wording at least three times which indicated that all collections were monitored. The inference was Ms D’s missed collections were being monitored when that was not happening. In April the Council told Ms D it did not know why she was not on the collection list. It failed to explain how far it had investigated this fault. In June the Council identified there were IT issues, this may have been partly responsible for the missed collections, but it clearly was not the sole issue as the error continued into the second half of the year. In November the Council was still telling Ms D it would take action and failing to follow through. It was only when Ms D approached the Ombudsman that any useful and long-term action was taken. I welcome the Council’s response to contact from the Ombudsman and I can see that since regular monitoring started the waste collections have been carried out correctly. However, that monitoring should have taken place much sooner.

Did the fault cause an injustice

16. Had the Council responded proactively to Ms D’s contact it could and should have implemented monitoring of the waste collections by the early April 2023. Instead, this did not happen until mid-December, over eight months later. Ms D received a substandard level of service during that period of delay.

Back to top

Agreed action

17. The Council accepts there has been a failure to provide Ms D with a reasonable service. It offers its apologies and a £250 redress payment. I consider that a reasonable remedy for the fault I have identified.
18. The Council should provide us with evidence it has issued the redress payment within the next four weeks.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have upheld the complaint and completed the investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman