Summary: The Council was at fault when it frequently failed to collect Mr X’s household refuse over an eight month period. It did not address the issue or respond to Mr X’s concerns in a timely manner. The Council will make a payment to Mr X to acknowledge the frustration this caused him.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council repeatedly failed to collect his household waste and that of neighbouring flats. Mr X complained this led to health and hygiene risks at his property, including an infestation of mice, causing him and his family distress.
2. Mr X complained the Council’s communication and response to his complaint was poor which caused him frustration.

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. 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

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

Back to top

What I found

What happened

7. 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.
8. The Council's practice is to make a weekly household waste collection.
9. Mr X lived in a ground floor flat with gated access. There is a bin store inside the gates, which open with a key fob.
10. Mr X said the issues with the collection of refuse began in June 2024. Available evidence shows that between September 2024 and February 2025 the Council repeatedly failed to collect the refuse from his property at least 10 times.
11. Council records show that on 5 occasions the Council were unable to gain access to the bins as the gate would not open. The Council also suggested the key fob was not working at times and they were liaising with the managing agent for the flats.
12. Mr X said there has been no problem with the gates opening since 2022. He also said there has not been an issue with the collection of the recycling refuse, which there would have been if the problem was with the opening of the gates.
13. In October 2024 Mr X emailed a Council officer regarding the missed collections. The officer responded it had misplaced the key fob and asked if it could have another one. An email from August 2025 shows at the time the Council incorrectly thought Mr X was the managing agent for the flats.
14. Mr X had a rodent infestation in his flat in December 2024. He said this was a consequence of the amount of refuse outside his property.
15. Mr X emailed a Council officer in December 2024 regarding the missed refuse collection and his concern this had caused the mouse infestation. He had no response to this email for over three weeks. He emailed them again in January 2025 to report the refuse had not been collected for three weeks.
16. Text message communication with the Council from December 2024 shows the Managing Agent from the flats contacted the Council to explain there were multiple complaints from tenants about refuse collection.
17. A further text message to the Council officer suggests the refuse collectors were not using the key fob correctly.
18. In March 2025 Mr X complained to the Council through the Council’s complaints procedure. He complained about the Council’s repeated failure to collect the refuse and that his email messages about this were ignored. The Stage one complaint response, sent later that month, said the issues were due to the entry fob not working and the gates only partially opening. It said it had liaised with the managing agent and they were fully aware of the issues. It said it was the managing agent’s responsibility to ensure the refuse vehicles could access the bins and this had not been the case. It did not address Mr X’s concerns about a lack of communication from the Council.
19. Mr X asked to escalate his complaint to the second stage of the Council’s complaints’ procedure. He said it had not responded to the concerns he raised. The Council responded 25 working days later. It said the managing agent was its main point of contact, who was responsible for ensuring the Council could access the locked bin stores. It did not address the parts of Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s misuse of the key fob or the lack of communication.

Analysis

20. The information available shows the Council repeatedly failed to collect Mr X’s refuse between June 2024 and February 2025. These failings in service amount to fault.
21. There are inconsistent responses from the Council as to the reasons for the missed collections, including the gates not opening, or partially opening and the key fob going missing. The Council failed to clearly establish why the refuse collections were missed and whether this was an issue with the fob, the lack of a fob or its misuse by the crew. There is also evidence to show some of the Council’s responses to Mr X’s concerns were delayed or missed.
22. The Stage two complaint response from the Council was issued within the timescales set out in its policy. However, the response does not address all the issues Mr X raised.
23. I cannot say, even on balance, the lack of refuse collections was the cause of the rodent infestation. The reports from the pest control services do not identify the refuse as a reason for the infestation. However, Mr X has experienced frustration and disappointment, both with the missed collections and the Council’s failure to resolve the problem and to communicate effectively with him.
24. The refuse collection returned to the planned weekly collection in March 2025. The Council also said it was monitoring the refuse collection. I do not consider it necessary to make recommendations for service improvements.

Agreed Action

25. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £150 to recognise the frustration caused by the Council’s failure to make regular refuse collections and to resolve the issue sooner and for its poor communication.
26. 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.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. There was fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman