Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s bin collection staff leaving waste on his street after collections, its complaint process, and its general street cleaning. There is no different outcome an investigation would achieve than that which the Council has provided, and the matters cause insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate council complaint processes where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to a complaint. It is reasonable for Mr X to make a complaint about general street cleaning to the Council first.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains:
1. the Council’s refuse crews leave waste on the street after collections;
2. the Council’s complaint process gives untrue responses and does not result in improvements;
3. the Council is not routinely cleaning the streets.
2. Mr X says the Council is taking council tax but not providing basic waste services. He says he has spent time complaining to be lied to or ignored. Mr X says he has had conflict with neighbours when he asked them to clean up waste left by Council bin staff.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information from Mr X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to Mr X’s first complaint and report about bin crews spilling and leaving waste on the street during collections, Council officers reminded the crews to clear spillages. Mr X reported a further spillage, sending a photograph of it, during the Council’s complaint process. Officers recognised there was a spillage but suggested it may have gone by the time staff attended the area. They issued a further reminder to bin staff to clear any dropped waste as they go. The Council upheld Mr X’s complaint and apologised to him. The Council’s apology and reminders to its staff are the kinds of outcome we would expect to achieve from this kind of complaint. There is no different outcome an investigation would achieve for Mr X so we will not investigate.
7. Even if the Council had not provided this outcome, we would not have investigated. We recognise Mr X has been affected by the waste spillages, the time taken to complain and discord with his neighbours. The interactions between Mr X and neighbours about the spilled waste are not within the control of the Council, so any discord would not be an injustice to him caused directly by its staff. Mr X’s annoyance from the spillages and time taken to complain do not amount to sufficient significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating, so we would not do so.
8. We note Mr X refers to the Council taking council tax and not providing the service paid for. Council tax is a levy based on property value and is not a payment made to receive a specific service. The Council is providing waste services. That the service is not entirely to the standard Mr X would like because it has resulted in some spillages is insufficient significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating.
9. Mr X complains about the Council’s internal complaint process and the replies he received. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That limitation applies here so we will not investigate this aspect of the complaint.
10. Mr X’s complaint to us widens out his concerns from litter caused during bin collections to the Council not routinely cleaning the streets in his area. This issue is not mentioned in the Council complaint documents Mr X has provided and his complaint to us is general, giving no details of how the issue has affected him. It would be premature for us to consider this part of the complaint and we make no decision on it here. It would not be unreasonable for Mr X to give the Council the opportunity to deal with and reply to any street cleaning complaint because it may provide an appropriate outcome. If Mr X wishes to make this complaint to the Council, he should do so as a new complaint. If he is dissatisfied with the outcome, he could bring the matter to us. We would consider it in line with our remit, including a consideration of the level of personal injustice the matters raised caused Mr X.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome than that already provided; and
• the matters complained of cause insufficient significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating; and
• we do not investigate council complaint processes where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to a complaint; and
• it is reasonable for Mr X to make any complaint about general street cleaning to the Council first.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman