Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not collecting his cardboard waste and its delay responding to his complaint. The matters complained of do not cause sufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant us investigating. We do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues giving rise to the complaint.

The complaint

1. The Council issues residents with a blue bag for recycling collections of cardboard, some paper and food and drink cartons. It advises that if they have not got a blue bag, residents should put their items in an untied carrier bag. Mr X complains the Council:
1. failed to collect his cardboard for three weeks while he waited for a new blue bag, despite him following its advice on presenting the waste;
2. delayed in dealing with his complaint.
2. Mr X says he had to store a lot of cardboard in his property which he says caused a hazard. He says having to deal with the Council and storing the waste caused him stress, upset and anxiety.

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:

• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s complaint to the Council indicates he did not have an official blue bag for cardboard recycling for two weeks and missed three collections. The Council upheld the complaint and apologised for the missed collections and any resulting frustration, distress or inconvenience. Officers also set out changes to its service to improve its recycling collections.
6. We recognise Mr X was caused distress and inconvenience while his cardboard waste was not collected, despite following the Council’s guidance, and by having to contact the Council about it. But the injustice caused by this, given the length of time and number of collections involved, does not amount to such a significant personal injustice to warrant us investigating so we will not do so.
7. Mr X says the Council delayed in responding to his complaint. We do not investigate councils’ internal complaint-handling processes in isolation where we are not investigating the core issues which gave 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 part of the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• the matters complained of do not cause sufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X to warrant us investigating; and
• we do not investigate councils’ complaint-handling where we are not investigating the core issues which gave rise to the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman