Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about bin collection issues. This is because the matter has not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice which is serious enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council missed his refuse collection before Christmas and then told him he needs to present his bin for collection at the kerbside in order for it to be collected. Mr X says the Council is asking him to place the bin where it will obstruct the pavement. He says this puts him at risk of prosecution. He is often away for work for days at a time and so his bin could be left on the pavement for several days. He asked the Council for a copy of its risk assessment document for this change but it has not provided it.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

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 complained to the Council about the matters set out in paragraph one, above.
8. The Council said the collection was not made because Mr X’s bin was not placed on the kerbside for collection. It said its policy states collections are made at the kerbside and this has been the case since 2008. It noted Mr X is now placing his bin in the correct position and the collections have been completed without any issues.
9. The Council considered and responded to Mr X’s request for the risk assessment as a request under the Freedom of Information Act. It advised Mr X of his right to request an Internal Review which he has used.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because the matters complained about have not caused Mr X any significant personal injustice which is so serious that it warrants an investigation and the use of limited public funds to do so.
11. We do not investigate every complaint we receive and we must focus our limited public resources on investigating those complaints where a person has suffered a significant personal injustice as a result of fault by a body in our jurisdiction. This is not the case here.
12. Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to his Freedom of Information request is best considered by the ICO. There is also a right of appeal to the first tier tribunal against the ICO’s decision should Mr X remain dissatisfied.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the matter has not caused him any significant personal injustice which is so serious that it warrants an investigation. The complaint about the Council’s response to his information request is a matter the ICO is best placed to consider.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman