Summary: Mr X complained the Council has repeatedly failed to collect his recycling for over a year and has failed to carry out an effective and transparent investigation into the reason for the missed collections. The Council’s failure to properly investigate the cause of Mr X’s missed recycling collections is fault. This fault caused Mr X an injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X complained the Council has repeatedly failed to collect his recycling for over a year and has failed to carry out an effective and transparent investigation into the reason for the missed collections.
2. Mr X also complains about the way the Council has responded to his complaints and communication, and that council officers were rude, and unhelpful in his telephone calls.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by Mr X;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided;
• discussed the issues with Mr X;
• Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Refuse and recycling collections

6. Councils have a duty under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to arrange for the collection of household waste and recycling from properties in its area. The collections do not have to be weekly and councils can decide the type of bins or boxes people must use.
7. The Council's practice is to make a weekly household waste collection and a fortnightly recycling collection.
8. When a resident reports a missed collection, the Depot will ask the crew to return to complete the round as soon as possible. When the Council has completed the collection, it closes the report.

What happened here

9. Mr X says the Council has repeatedly failed to collect his recycling since May/ June 2023.
10. According to the Council’s records Mr X has reported five missed recycling collections since May 2023. The first was in September 2023 and the most recent July 2024. The Council closed all of the reports the same day they were made.
11. Mr X also called the Council’s fleet and waste service four times between January and March 2024. The Council no longer has recordings of the calls so is unable to confirm what was discussed.
12. In October 2023 Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. He complained the Council had missed his recycling collections for the last two months. Mr X complained his online BRUM account with the Council said his recycling was missed as his bin contained unsuitable items. Mr X disputed this and noted the collection crew had never attached a label to his bin it say it would not be collected. He also highlighted he had no control over passers by putting rubbish in his bin.
13. Mr X said it was only his own and his neighbour’s bin that were missed and asked for the accumulated waste to be cleared as soon as possible.
14. The Council responded in early November 2023 and advised it had made a manager aware of the problem and they would speak to the crew concerned. The Council said it aimed to clear on the next available opportunity but if this is not possible any excess waste will be cleared on the next scheduled date.
15. In addition, the Council reminded Mr X he must present his waste in the way the Council asked him to. It said crews may not empty contaminated bins and that waste needed to be separated.
16. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response as the waste had not been cleared and his recycling was not collected again the previous week. He said his recycling had not been collected for three months but the Council had not offered any explanation and his bin had not been tagged. Mr X asked the Council to fully investigate what had happened.
17. A few days later the Council confirmed its system showed its crews had cleared the outstanding waste. It suggested that if the Council had missed Mr X’s street or house this could have been because:
• His street was blocked by parked cars;
• There were road closures and the Council could not reach his street; or
• It had staff shortages.
18. The Council also suggested Mr X may not have put his bins out in time or that his bins may have contained items that were not allowed, or recycling that was not clean or properly separated. The Council referred to this as “contaminated” and said if Mr X’s waste was contaminated there would be a tag on his bin to inform him.
19. Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two of its complaint process. He was concerned that each time a collection was missed it caused an environmental hazard as it attracted rats. Mr X’s bin was repeatedly missed but no tags were ever left on his bin.
20. The Council responded in December 2023 and said that if Mr X’s bin contains unsuitable items the recycling crew are unable to collect it. The bin will remain uncollected until the contents are rectified. The Council noted Mr X had said passers-by used his bin and that this was what was causing the problem. It told Mr X he should store his bins on the property boundary and only present them on the day of collection. This would minimise the use by passers-by.
21. As Mr X remained dissatisfied he asked the Ombudsman to investigate. He complained his recycling waste was still not being collected and that council officers were unhelpful, shouted at him, and spoke over him during his recent calls. As the Council told us Mr X had not completed its complaint process we referred his complaint back to the Council to consider.
22. The Council’s stage two response addressed both the missed collections and the poor level of customer support. In relation to the missed collections the Council reiterated that if the crew identify unsuitable items in the bin a collection cannot be made. It said it would empty Mr X’s bin to enable him to continue recycling but if this is a regular occurrence it may suggests the Council removes the recycling and residual bin and just provides a bigger residual waste bin.
23. The Council also reviewed Mr X’s calls to the Fleet and Waste services department. It acknowledged Officer 1 had raised their voice more than once during the call and had failed to assist Mr X when he asked about the complaint he had raised. The Council also acknowledged that Officer 2 spoke over Mr X more than once during the call and failed to provide information which should have been available in front of them.
24. It apologised for the way both calls were handled and for any inconvenience caused to Mr X. The Council said it did not tolerate behaviour or attitude like this from its advisors and the officers’ manager would be informed of the incidents and address this with them.
25. Mr X was unhappy with the Council’s response and asked the Council to confirm the nature of the contamination, and when and on how many occasions the crew had identified any contamination. Mr X said that every crew member he had spoken to had confirmed the contents of his recycling bin were fine.
26. In addition, Mr X asserted there was a systemic and endemic problem of poor service within the Council’s advisory team. He said his bins were never tagged and he was never given any information or an explanation. Officers were unhelpful, abrupt and gave insufficient or incorrect information about the complaint procedure. Mr X said they either suggested there would be a resolution with two or three weeks or that there was nothing they could do.
27. Mr X said that in the absence of any explanation or advice from the Council he had suggested if there was contamination this may have been added by passers-by. He was unhappy the Council had not provided any evidence it had investigated this. Mr X said he had by chance come across a note on his account with the Council claiming contamination but there was no evidence of when it was contaminated or what the contamination was.
28. There is no record the Council responded to Mr X’s requests.
29. Mr X has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his concerns about a lack of transparency and evidence in the Council’s investigation. He has provided a screen shot of his BRUM account for 26 March 2024 which states his collection was not completed as the Bin/Sack/Box contained unsuitable items. He has also provided a photograph of the contents of his recycling bins he says was taken the same day. This does not suggest any contamination. He says a council officer told him he could not report the missed collection or provide evidence to support his claim.
30. In response to my enquiries the Council says that where crews identify contaminated recycling waste they note this on their tablet. This information is then transferred to the resident’s online BRUM account to notify them that their bin is contaminated. In addition, if the crews have any tags, they will place them on the bin to make the resident aware their bin is contaminated. The Council’s financial constraints meant that for a period crews were unable to tag bins, but the Council says this should not be an issue going forward.
31. The Council says Mr X’s recycling bin was not collected due to it being contaminated by passers-by as Mr X was not storing his bin within his property boundary between collections. It says Mr X was informed of this by its complaints team and the information was recorded on his BRUM account.
32. If a bin is contaminated the Council will not treat this as a missed collection.
33. The Council has been unable to provide details of when Mr X’s bins were recorded as contaminated. It says a technical issue with the crews tablets means it is unable to create a report of the contamination records. It is also unable to provide details of any notes or restrictions added to Mr X’s BRUM account or say when they were reviewed or removed.
34. In relation to Mr X’s complaints the Council says it followed its complaint procedures. It determined Mr X’s initial complaint was not justified as his bin was contaminated. A senior officer then responded at stage two of the process with information on how to use the recycling bin and where it should be stored. The Council also apologised for the poor service he received from the call centre.

Analysis

35. It is clear from the documentation that Mr X’s recycling has not been routinely collected as scheduled. However the extent of the missed collections is unclear. The Council states Mr X has reported a total of five missed collections, but Mr X’s complaints refer to consecutive missed collections over two or three months.
36. Mr X and the Council also have differing views on the reason for the missed collections. The Council says Mr X’s recycling was not collected as the bin was contaminated. Mr X disputes this and maintains his waste is correctly presented on collection day.
37. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
38. It is not possible at this stage to confirm whether or not there were occasions when Mr X’s recycling bins was contaminated.
39. The Council has a system for recording contaminated recycling bins and says its position is based on reports by the collection crew about Mr X’s bin. We would not generally criticise the Council for relying on the information submitted via this system. However where, as in this case, a resident has repeatedly challenged the claim that his recycling bin is contaminated I would expect the Council to properly investigate the matter.
40. The Council has not demonstrated it has done so in this instance. The Council has confirmed it has not monitored Mr X’s collections and there is no evidence anyone has visited to confirm the reason for the missed collections. Nor has the Council provided copies of the contaminated waste reports.
41. I also note that in its responses to Mr X’s complaints the Council has offered a number of possible explanations for the missed collections, including:
• parked cars blocking access to his street;
• road closures where the Council could not reach his street;
• staff shortages;
• not putting his bins out in time;
• not storing his bin within his property boundary; or
• that his bins may have contained items that were not allowed, possibly left by people walking past.
42. This appears to be a generic list of possibilities rather than an explanation based on an investigation of Mr X’s specific circumstances. If there was clear evidence Mr X’s recycling was contaminated I would have expected the Council to refer this rather than speculate on possible reasons for the missed collections.
43. The Council also advised Mr X that if his waste was contaminated there would be a tag on his bin to inform him. Mr X says the crews have never tagged his bins and that when he has directly asked them, they have confirmed his waste can be collected. Mr X has also provided / offered to provide photographic evidence of his recycling to demonstrate it is not contaminated.
44. The Council has explained there was a period when it could not order tags so crews were unable to put tags on contaminated bins. It has not however confirmed when this period was. If this was a problem in October/ November 2023 I would not have expected officers to advise Mr X his bin would be tagged if contaminated.
45. In addition, the Council’s view that passers-by may have contaminated Mr X’s recycling is based on a comment Mr X made about the location of his property and the possibility this could be the cause. There is no evidence this is the case, or that Mr X leaves his bins on the street for extended periods as the Council suggests. And the Council has not responded to Mr X’s questions regarding the nature of the contamination and when it was identified.
46. I consider the Council’s failure to properly investigate the cause of Mr X’s missed recycling collections is fault. This fault caused Mr X an injustice in the form of distress and frustration.
47. This was exacerbated by the way Mr X’s calls to the Fleet and Waste department were dealt with. The Council has confirmed the officers should have dealt with Mr X’s calls differently and has apologised for the way the calls were handled.

Back to top

Agreed action

48. The Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 to recognise the distress and frustration the failure to properly investigate his complaints caused. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• monitor Mr X’s recycling collections for eight weeks to ensure the collections are carried out properly and that the reasons for any missed collections are clearly recorded and explained to Mr X.
49. The Council should take this action within eight weeks of the final decision on this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

50. The Council’s failure to properly investigate the cause of Mr X’s missed recycling collections is fault. This fault caused Mr X an injustice.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman