Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about overflowing communal bins. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about how the Council handled his report of overflowing communal bins in his neighbourhood. He said the Council failed to:
• collect the bins regularly, resulting in overflow and attracting rodents;
• consider residents’ suggestions to replace communal bins with individual household bins;
• implement parking restrictions that would allow bin lorries easier access; and
• take effective action despite his repeated complaints.
2. He believes the situation poses a serious health risk and forces residents to live in unsanitary conditions. He also expressed concern the rodent infestation is lowering his property’s value and will affect his ability to sell it in the future.
3. Mr X wants the Council to replace the communal bins with individual bins collected weekly and introduce parking restrictions to stop non-residents from parking in the area.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X lives on a street where communal bins are located at the end of a narrow road with parking permitted on both sides. Although the Council schedules waste collection from these bins twice a week, Mr X said bin lorries have frequently been unable to access the street due to various obstructions, resulting in missed collections.
8. In its complaint response, the Council expressed sympathy for Mr X and other residents, acknowledging the avoidable distress the situation had caused. It explained the issue was not due to the Council's actions, but rather the result of inconsiderate parking—often by non-residents visiting a nearby organisation—which frequently blocked access to the street and prevented waste lorries from collecting the bins. The Council further explained bin lorries were significantly larger than private vehicles and needed ample space to safely manoeuvre the narrow street. It was up to each driver to assess whether access is possible.
9. Following Mr X’s complaint, the Council asked its Neighbourhood Team to investigate. The team contacted the contractor’s senior supervisor and requested on one occasion that crews return to clear the side waste that had built up. The contractor also agreed to use smaller vehicles for the route when possible to improve access on partially obstructed streets. The Council further considered leafleting residents but decided against it, as it found the issue was mainly caused by non-residents visiting a nearby organisation. Instead, the Neighbourhood Team approached the organisation directly and asked it to remind its visitors to be mindful when parking and not to obstruct access to nearby streets.
10. The Council has taken appropriate action to resolve the situation in response to Mr X’s report of overflowing communal bins. Therefore we will not investigate as further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman