Summary: Ms Y complained about the Council’s refusal to provide a wheelie bin for her property. We have found fault, causing injustice, by the Council in failing to: properly consider and assess the evidence Ms Y provided; and apply a consistent policy regarding the safety of collection points. The Council has now provided Ms Y with a wheelie bin, and agreed to remedy the injustice its failures caused by making a payment to Ms Y to reflect her upset, time and trouble and service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the Council’s refusal to provide a wheelie bin for the waste collection service from their property.
2. She says the Council’s reasons for refusing to provide them with a wheelie bin are inconsistent and unfounded. It provided neighbouring properties, in exactly the same circumstances as their property, with bins and is applying its policy unfairly.
3. The refusal to provide her with a wheelie bin has caused her and her family hygiene and safety problems and other difficulties. Their disabled child uses nappies which must be disposed of daily. The protective sack issued by the Council in place of the bin is inadequate and unsuitable for the storage of this household waste over the two-week period between collections. It is then extremely physically challenging to drag the sack with two-weeks of waste from their property to the collection point.
4. Ms Y wants the Council to apply its policy on the issue of wheelie bins fairly and consistently and provide her family with a wheelie bin as it has now done for neighbouring properties.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. 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)
8. 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

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms Y and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Ms Y and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

11. The Council decided to make changes to its waste collection service to restrict the volume of rubbish and encourage recycling within its area. This included issuing residents with a standard 180-litre wheelie bin for their waste and the introduction of a fortnightly collection.
12. It also decided residents would not be issued with a standard wheelie bin in circumstances where:

• there was no space to store a wheelie bin on the resident’s property;
• the wheelie bin would have to be brought through the house to access the collection point; or
• the property had more than two steps for access to store the bin or present it for collection.

13. In these cases, it issued residents with a standard 180-litre protective sack for their waste and its presentation for collection.
14. The Council and its waste collection contractor undertook a property assessment to assess whether households should be issued with a wheelie bin or a protective sack. It says the assessments were based on:

• on-the-ground assessments;
• collection crew local knowledge;
• desk-top assessments; and
• in-person checks of property locations when required.

Our principles of Good Administrative Practice

15. We publish guidance about good administrative practice for local government. We use this as a benchmark for the standards we expect when we investigate complaints organisations whose actions we investigate. LGO Intranet | Principles of good administrative practice
16. We expect organisations to get things right. This includes following policy and guidance, taking account of established good practice and providing effective services, using appropriately trained and competent staff.
17. We also expect organisations to be open and accountable. This includes being open and clear about policies and procedures and maintaining transparency in in the light of complex service delivery arrangements.

What happened

18. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Ms Y’s first request for a wheelie bin

19. In March 2024, the Council issued standard wheelie bins and protective sacks to residents and introduced the fortnightly waste collection service.
20. Ms Y was issued with a protective sack instead of a wheelie bin. She contacted the Council about this and asked for a wheelie bin. The Council said it had assessed her property as ineligible for a wheelie bin because of its stepped access.
21. Ms Y told the Council, in addition to stepped access, their property had sloped access at the side, which they had used for the last nine years to move their previous wheelie bin to the collection point. Ms Y sent the Council a photograph of this sloped access as requested by the Council.
22. After receiving this evidence, the Council told Ms Y it could not issue her property with a wheelie bin because her collection point was on a hill and unsafe.

Ms Y’s request for a review of the Council’s decision

23. Ms Y asked the Council to review its decision not to issue her property with a wheelie bin. She again explained they had previously used the sloped access at the side of their property to move the wheelie bin and referred it to the photo provided. She also questioned why her neighbours, who had been issued with standard wheelie bins, were allowed to leave these for collection at the same point on the hill as her protective sack.
24. The Council told Ms Y to make a formal complaint if she was not happy with its decision.

Ms Y’s complaint to the Council

25. Ms Y made a formal complaint to the Council about its decision not to issue her property with a wheelie bin. In its response the Council said it could not provide a wheelie bin because her property:

• was on a steep hill; and
• failed to meet the eligibility criteria for a wheelie bin

26. And it said in its final complaint response:

• its criteria allow for the issue of a wheelie bin to properties on a steep hill if there is space to present it for collection from the property’s driveway, instead of the pavement; and
• the protective sack issued to her was the correct containment for her property

The Council’s response to our enquiries

27. Ms Y asked us to investigate her complaint. In its response to our initial enquiries the Council said:

• it had initially assessed Ms Y’s property as being unsuitable for a wheelie bin because of its steps;
• its waste contractor raised concerns about placing wheelie bins at Ms Y’s property’s collection point which, along with a number of neighbouring properties, was on the main pavement sloping down towards the road;
• When issuing its responses to Ms Y’s complaint, it would have looked at her property in more detail (using various mapping tools) before agreeing with the initial property assessment and its response to her first request for a wheelie bin; and
• it had recently asked its waste contractor to visit Ms Y’s property to assess its suitability for a wheelie bin. The contractor’s report referred to a possible alternative wheelie bin collection point via a public path to the rear of the property. But this was currently unsuitable because the path was overgrown, and it had not confirmed whether there were steps from Ms Y’s property to this path.

28. The Council also said it had asked the waste contractor to re-assess a number of properties, whose requests for a wheelie bin had been declined initially because they shared the same collection point on a hill with Ms Y. It had then decided:

• wheelie bins could be collected from this collection point;
• those properties meeting the criteria (no steps and no need to bring the bin through the house for collection) were issued with a wheelie bin instead of a sack; but
• Ms Y’s property did not meet these criteria because there was no step free access to move the wheelie bin from her property.

29. In response to our further enquiries about the complaint, the Council then told us:

• it asked the contractor to go back again to review the access to Ms Y’s property. On this follow-up visit the contractor was able to see the additional sloped step-free path at the side of Ms Y’s property which allowed her to move a wheelie bin from her home to the collection point; and
• this meant Ms Y met the criteria for the issue of a wheelie bin.

30. The Council replaced Ms Y’s protective sack with a wheelie bin In February 2025.

My view – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

31. In my view, the Council failed to properly consider, assess and respond to Ms Y’s request for a wheelie bin in line with our Principles of Good Administrative Practice. This is because:
1. it failed to properly investigate and assess the evidence Ms Y provided at the outset about the sloped access at the side of her property:

• its contractors appear to have focused on establishing access to an alternative collection point, instead of checking what Ms Y had told the Council about suitable access to the existing collection point; and
• the Council says its assessment process included in-person checks when required. Had it arranged a visit to Ms Y, she could have shown them the sloped access path from her property to the collection point which it now accepts meets its criteria.
2. it has not produced any records of:
• how and when it determined the collection point Ms Y shared with neighbouring properties was unsafe for wheelie bins; or
• whether or how it applied this policy to all the other properties within its area whose waste collection points are on a hill or sloping pavement.
3. when it changed its decision about the safety of Ms Y’s shared collection point for wheelie bins, it failed to properly re-assess its continued refusal to issue Ms Y with a wheelie bin. It refused her request for a review of its decision and required her to make a separate formal complaint.

32. I consider these failures were fault by the Council.

Impact of this fault

33. Because of these failures, the Council failed to establish Ms Y’s property met its current criteria for a wheelie bin when she first provided it with evidence of the step free access to the collection point.
34. It also applied a new reason for refusing to issue a wheelie bin to Ms Y – the collection point being on a sloping pavement – inconsistently. I haven’t seen any record it had any clear and fair policy for assessing the safety of collection points on slopes within its area and applying this as criteria for the issue of wheelie bins.
35. As a result, it took from March 2024 to February 2025 to replace Ms Y’s waste sack with a wheelie bin. During this period of nearly a year, Ms Y or her partner had to drag a 180-litre sack some distance from her property to the collection point, instead of simply pulling along a 180-litre wheelie bin. This is in addition to the difficulties Ms Y experienced in storing nappy waste for two weeks between collections in a protective sack rather than a lidded bin.
36. Ms Y also had to spend further time and trouble pursuing her complaint with the Council

Back to top

Action

37. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults and, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Ms Y for its failure to properly consider and assess the evidence she provided for her request for a wheelie bin; and apply a consistent policy regarding the safety of collection points. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
2. pay Ms Y £150 to reflect the upset, frustration and time and trouble caused by its failures. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies.
38. And within three months from the date of our final decision the Council has agreed to review its procedures for assessing a property’s eligibility for a wheelie bin or other type of waste collection container and make any changes needed to ensure:
1. there are clear and transparent criteria for decisions;
2. there is clear guidance in place for officers making decisions, including about how to check if the criteria have been met; and
3. it keeps proper records to support consistency in decision making.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above actions to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman