Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council made, and communicated, its decision to change refuse collection arrangements for his home. We found fault in how it communicated its decision. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty and confusion caused to him. We did not find evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s decision to withdraw refuse collections from outside his home. He complained the Council:
• gave residents no notice of its decision;
• refused to do a final refuse collection from outside his home;
• unreasonably decided to withdraw refuse collections from outside his home;
• based its decision on mistaken claims about the status of Lane Y;
• delayed making its decision following a site inspection in July 2024;
• gave different reasons for its decision at different times;
• refused to reassess its decision after residents made improvements to Lane Y; and
• failed to answer all the issues in his complaint about its decision.
2. Mr X stated the Council’s actions have left him with no practical way to manage his household waste causing him inconvenience and frustration. He has also been put to the time and trouble of pursuing this matter.

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. 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)
5. 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.
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr 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

9. In making requirements as respects receptacles under subsection (1) above, the authority may, by the notice under that subsection, make provision with respect to—

(a)the size, construction and maintenance of the receptacles;

(b)the placing of the receptacles for the purpose of facilitating the emptying of them, and access to the receptacles for that purpose;

(c)the placing of the receptacles for that purpose on highways or, in Scotland, roads;

(d)the substances or articles which may or may not be put into the receptacles or compartments of receptacles of any description and the precautions to be taken where particular substances or articles are put into them; and

(e)the steps to be taken by occupiers of premises to facilitate the collection of waste from the receptacles.

North Yorkshire Council’s complaints procedure

10. The Council’s complaints procedure explains how it will consider complaints about its service. It says that if a complainant is unhappy with its response to their initial (stage one) complaint they can request the matter is considered at stage two of its procedure. It explains that it will not investigate a complaint at stage two if it is satisfied it has followed its policies, procedures and the relevant legislation properly.

What happened

11. Mr X lives in a home located on Lane Y.
12. In July 2024 the Council inspected Lane Y following reports from its refuse crew that it was unsafe for them and refuse lorries. The inspection report states Lane Y had:
• overhanging vegetation
• areas that needed remedial works to improve the surface of the lane
• reduced road space and narrow gates
• a gate at the end which is very close to a beck. This is not safe for refuse lorries.
• insufficient room for refuse lorries to turnaround or pass other vehicles.

The report included photographs of Lane Y showing the issues highlighted in the report.

13. The report recommended ending collections from outside individual properties along Lane Y. It recommended residents leave their refuse bins at the end of Lane Y for collection.
14. In August the Council considered the findings of the report and decided to change refuse collections arrangements in line with the report’s recommendations.
15. On 17 October refuse crews told residents of Lane Y that collection arrangements were changing, and this would be the last collection from outside their homes. Mr X stated the refuse crew seemed surprised residents did not already know about the changes.
16. Also on 17 October the Council wrote a letter to residents on Lane Y explaining the changes to their refuse collections. The letter explained conditions along Lane Y posed a health and safety risk to refuse crews and could cause damage to its refuse lorries. Mr X and other residents say they did not receive this letter, while other residents received the letter several days later.
17. Mr X sought clarification from the Council about the reasons for the change in collection arrangements. In communications with Mr X the Council states the reasons for changing collections arrangements were:
• a loose surface along Lane Y;
• closeness of the lane to a beck;
• insufficient turning and passing space along the lane and;
• erosion.
18. The Council spoke with another resident about the changes following which it changed the collection point to another place along Lane Y. It also offered to make a final refuse collection from outside resident’s homes, if their refuse collection was missed on 17 October.
19. In November Mr X complained to the Council at stage one of its complaints process. He complained the Council:
• wrongly described Lane Y as a “private loose surfaced track” when it is a public bridleway. This means the Council is responsible for maintaining the road surface and drainage.
• in spring 2024 a refuse driver was observed driving down Lane Y with both hands off the steering wheel and filming. This compromised safety and shows concerns about the safety of Lane Y were known long before an assessment was undertaken.
• the Council did not consult the residents of Lane Y following the Council’s inspection of July 2024.
• on 17 October a refuse driver told a resident about the collection changes. He appeared surprised the resident was unaware of the change. The Council issued its letter to residents later that day.
• the Council’s letter of 17 October was issued too late to give residents notice of the last refuse collection from outside their homes.
• residents along Lane Y received the letter of 17 October over a week later. Others, including Mr X, have never received the letter.
• the Council has given inconsistent reasons for changing collection arrangements and so the reasons for the change are unclear.
• in response to the collection changes residents along Lane Y have repaired the surface of the lane, addressed drainage issues, pruned overhanging vegetation and are engaging with the Council to arrange shared maintenance responsibilities. Therefore residents believe Lane Y is safe for refuse lorries and crew.

Mr X asked for refuse collections from outside his home to be reinstated and for an investigation into the refuse lorry driver seen driving without his hands on the steering wheel.

20. The Council’s reply to Mr X’s complaint said:
• refuse crews raised concerns about the safety of Lane Y and so a site inspection was carried out to complete a risk assessment.
• the risk assessment identified risks to the health and safety of staff and the potential for refuse lorries to be damaged. It said the risk was due to overhanging vegetation, uneven road surface, poor road surface, erosion and a lack of passing places or turning circles.
• because of the identified risks alternative collection arrangements have been made for residents in Lane Y. Similar collections methods are in place in other areas where the Council is responsible for refuse collections.
• the letter of 17 October was sent to all residents of Lane Y. However it apologised for any stress or anxiety caused by the non-delivery of the letter.
• an investigation has been requested into the allegation a refuse vehicle driver was driving without his hands on the steering wheel.

The Council did not uphold his complaint and said the new collection arrangements would remain.

21. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. However the Council said it would not investigate as further investigation would not result in a different decision on his complaint.
22. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman. His grounds of complaint remained the same.
23. We made enquiries of the Council. It told us:
• delays in acting on the site inspection of Lane Y were because of staffing arrangements following the recent local government reorganisation which impacted on service continuity.
• the new collection point is 0.2 miles from Mr X’s home (Mr X disputes the distance and states the collection point is 0.3miles from his home). The arrangement is consistent with other properties in the area where residents transport their refuse over similar distances.
• the primary reasons for altering refuse collections for Lane Y are the closeness of the road to a beck, where significant erosion has compromised the safety of the road. It also referenced concerns about the road surface and overgrown vegetation.
• the works carried out by residents of Lane Y do not address all the safety issues identified in its risk assessment.
• the Council sent letters to residents on 17 October 2024, but these appear not to have been delivered due to issues outside the Council’s control. It will consider how it undertakes future delivery of similar letters.
• Lane Y is a private track not maintained by the Council.
• the Council investigated the allegation a refuse lorry driver was driving without his hands on the steering wheel. This is an internal matter for the Council to address.

Finding

The Council gave no notice to Mr X or other residents of its decision to change refuse collection arrangements

24. The Council sent a letter to residents dated 17 October 2024, telling them about the changes to their refuse collection. This meant the letter would not reach residents until 18 October, at the earliest, a day after the last refuse collection from outside their homes. Therefore it did not give residents notice of the change with sufficient time for them to maximise the use of the last refuse collection from outside their homes.
25. The Council did not discuss the change of collection arrangements with residents to get their views, despite it having sufficient time to do so after completing the risk assessment. I note the Council altered the location of collections following a discussion with a resident. Discussing the new arrangements with residents before implementing them would have avoided residents having to contact the Council about the practicalities of the new collection point and avoided the uncertainty caused by the further change.
26. The Council stated it sent letters to residents on 17 October however Mr X and other residents did not receive them. The Council has provided a copy of the letter it sent. I also understand some residents did receive the letter, albeit some days later. Therefore I consider that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council did send the letter to residents.

The Council refused to do a final refuse collection from outside resident’s homes.

27. The Council offered to do a final refuse collection from outside resident’s homes if they missed their collection on 17 October 2024. Therefore the offer made by the Council did not provide residents with the chance to have one final collection from outside their homes. The Council should have told residents about the change before the last collection from outside their homes.

The Council unreasonably decided to withdraw bin collection services from outside Mr X’s home.

28. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body and do not comment on differing views about the merits of a decision made by the Council. Our role is to consider if there is evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision. Without evidence of fault we cannot question the Council’s decision.
29. The Council has provided a copy of the risk assessment report which shows it inspected Lane Y. The report shows the Council considered the relevant matters and it provides evidence supporting the reasons it has given for saying the lane is unsafe for refuse crews. For this reason I do not find fault by the Council in how it made its decision.
30. I acknowledge Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision and disputes some of the reasons it has given for changing collection arrangements. However without evidence of fault in how the Council made its decision there are not grounds for me to question the merits of the decision it made.
31. Furthermore Section 47 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 allows the Council to request refuse is left in a location which facilitates its collection.

The Council based its decision on mistaken claims about Lane Y’s status

32. Mr X states Lane Y is a public bridleway and so it should be maintained by the Council. The Council disagrees and states it is a private track. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to adjudicate in legal disputes about the status of Lane Y.
33. Furthermore the risk assessment concluded the width of the lane and its closeness to a beck made it unsafe for refuse lorries and crews. Therefore even if the lane should be maintained by the Council, it would not alter the decision to change refuse collection arrangements as these matters cannot be addressed as part of maintaining the lane.

The Council delayed its decision after assessing Lane Y in July 2024

34. I agree there was a delay between the Council inspecting Lane Y in July 2024 and implementing refuse collection changes in October 2024. However I do not consider this caused Mr X an injustice as the delay meant he continued to benefit from refuse collections outside his home for longer.

The Council gave different reasons for its decision to change refuse collection arrangements at different times.

35. The Council’s initial correspondence to Mr X refers to concerns about the deteriorating condition of Lane Y. Later communications refer to concerns about Lane Y’s closeness to a beck, erosion and a lack of turning points or passing places. For this reason I consider the initial information provided by the Council did not clearly explain all the reasons for the change in collection arrangements. This has caused Mr X uncertainty about the need for a change in collection arrangements and necessitated him making further contact with the Council and making a complaint.
36. The unclear information given by the Council to residents meant they thought that addressing the condition of the lane might result in the previous collection arrangements being reinstated. While residents have benefited from the works they completed there is uncertainty about whether they would have made improvements if the Council had given clearer information about all the reasons for the collection change at the outset.

The Council refused to reassess its decision following improvements made by residents

37. The Council has clarified Lane Y is too close to a beck to be safe for refuse lorries and crews. It also has concerns about the lane not providing sufficient turning room or passing places. The works completed by residents do not address these issues and so there are not grounds to recommend it reconsider its decision.

The Council did not answer all the issues raised in Mr X’s complaint

38. Mr X states the Council did not answer all the matters raised in his complaint. I agree it did not do so. However the Council’s stage two complaint response explained its reasons for not investigating further and addressing these matters. Its decision not to investigate is in keeping with its complaint’s procedure.

Back to top

Agreed Action

39. Within one month of my final decision the Council will apologise to Mr X for its poor communication about the decision to change his refuse collection arrangements. 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.
40. Within three months of my final decision the Council will review it processes for telling residents about changes to their refuse collections to ensure communications are received by residents and give adequate notice before the change is introduced.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused to Mr X.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman