Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to collect and/or return her garden bin on several occasions. While we find no fault in how the Council handled the missed bin collections, we do find fault in the way it managed her contact. However, this did not result in a significant injustice. We also find fault in the Council’s delay responding to her complaint, which caused her avoidable distress. We recommend the Council reviews the decision to restrict her contact.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council has failed to collect and/or return her garden waste bin on several occasions. She also complained the Council threatened her with legal action and delayed responding to her complaint.
2. She says this has caused her significant distress and ongoing anxiety, particularly the night before scheduled bin collections.

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. 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.
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Household waste and recycling collections

8. 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.
9. Councils are not required by law to collect garden waste, and so they may charge a collection fee for doing so. It is for each council to decide what the fee should be.
10. Councils normally expect people to move their bins to the pavement in front of their property, to allow it to be easily collected. However, a council may decide to provide an assisted collection to a person if they are unable to move their bins because of a disability. Under an assisted collection, the crew will enter the person’s property, such as their garden or driveway, to collect the bins, and then return them to their storage place afterwards.

The Council’s approach to managing unreasonable customer behaviour

11. The Council has a procedure in place to manage customer contact where it becomes necessary to protect staff or to maintain effective service delivery to other customers. This procedure may be formally triggered following a single, serious incident of unreasonable behaviour, or after repeated unreasonable conduct. Before taking formal action, the Council will issue an informal warning letter, agreed by relevant officers, advising the customer that restrictions may be introduced if the behaviour continues.
12. The Council recognises that some individuals may continue to disagree with a decision or remain dissatisfied even after a matter has been fully addressed. Unreasonable persistence may include, for example, repeated refusal to accept decisions or explanations, or ongoing contact without raising any new or relevant issues.
13. Where a decision is made to restrict a customer’s contact, the Council’s process allows for a review to be requested (except where restrictions are imposed following physical assault or threats). This review must be carried out by a senior officer who was not involved in the original decision. The outcome should be provided in writing, confirming whether the restriction will remain in place or whether alternative arrangements have been agreed.

What happened

14. Mrs X receives assisted bin collections. This involves two crews, one to empty the bins and another to return them to the agreed location.
15. In May 2024, Mrs X reported a missed garden waste collection. The Council emptied the bin four days later.
16. In August, she again reported a missed garden waste collection. She was asked to report it the following day, which she did, and the bin was emptied the next day.
17. The Council says, on the same day, a manager for waste services visited Mrs X, discussed her concerns, clarified where the bins should be returned, and shared a mobile contact number for future issues.
18. Despite this, Mrs X continued to report the missed collection, although the crew confirmed the bin had been emptied and returned.
19. Later that day, Mrs X formally complained about the missed collections. The Council says a more senior manager for waste services called her, confirmed the bin had been returned, and explained that a manager had visited and discussed the issue. According to the Council, Mrs X was satisfied with this response.
20. Later that month, she then reported that her garden waste bin had been emptied but not returned. The following day she chased the request and provided photo evidence. The Council says the bin was returned later that day.
21. In early September, Mrs X contacted the Council again about the same garden waste bin not being returned.
22. In October, the Council wrote to Mrs X advising that her contact in recent weeks had become unreasonable and persistent. It informed her that she would now be required to communicate through a single point of contact (SPOC) for waste-related matters. The letter clarified that this restriction did not apply to her contact with other Council services.
23. In January 2025, the Council issued its final response to Mrs X’s complaint, explaining that the delay in returning her bin in late August was due to a vehicle breakdown, and that a different crew completed the collection later.
24. In response to my enquiries, the Council stated that managers have spoken to Mrs X about her concerns with her bin collections and her frequent contact, which it considered bordering on vexatious. However, it could not provide any records to confirm these discussions took place.

My findings

Bin collections

25. Between May 2024 and January 2025, Mrs X reported three missed or incomplete garden waste collections. On each occasion, the Council took prompt and appropriate action. I find no fault in how the Council responded to these reports. While Mrs X disputes the Council’s claims that staff visited or spoke with her, I find, on the balance of probabilities, that some form of communication did occur. This conclusion is based on consistent staff statements provided during the original complaint and my investigation, which have remained unchanged, and internal logs recorded at the time, both of which support the Council’s account that visits, and contact took place. Although the Council is unable to provide formal records of the communication, I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that contact did occur.

Restricted contact

26. In October, the Council restricted Mrs X’s contact due to her frequent and repetitive communication. The Council’s Restricting Customer Contact Authorisation Form stated she had been making weekly complaints and, continued to contact the Council even after the issues had been resolved. This type of behaviour meets the criteria in the Council’s policy on managing unreasonable behaviour (paragraph 13). However, Mrs X had not been making weekly complaints, and the restriction was imposed seven weeks after her last contact. This means the decision itself was flawed and is therefore fault.
27. In addition, the Council also did not issue an informal warning before applying the contact restriction. This step is required under both its own policy (paragraph 12) and our guidance on Managing unreasonable actions by complainants: A guide for organisations. Although the Council says it discussed the matter with Mrs X, it has provided no written record of this discussion and did not issue an informal warning letter. This is fault.
28. The formal letter informing Mrs X of the contact restriction referenced the policy under which the decision had been made, however it failed to inform her of her right to request a review or how to do this. This is fault.
29. Mrs X stated that the letter threatened her with legal action. I have reviewed the letter and found no such threat.
30. While the Council’s handling of the contact restriction involved several faults, I do not consider these caused Mrs X a significant injustice. The Council provided her with a SPOC, intended to streamline communication, which could help resolve any future issues more effectively. The Council has confirmed that Mrs X has not contacted the SPOC since the restriction was imposed.

Complaint handling

31. Although the Council says it responded to Mrs X’s complaint verbally, it failed to provide a formal written response within the 10 working days required by its complaint procedure. Instead, it took almost five months to issue a written response. This is fault and caused Mrs X distress.

Back to top

Action

32. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to review the decision to restrict Mrs X’s contact and consider whether it is still appropriate.
33. We would normally have recommended the Council apologise to Mrs X; however, she told me that she did not wish to receive an apology.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman