Summary: Mr D says the Council failed to rectify pavement obstructions near a zebra crossing which causes issue for pedestrians who are visually impaired. I have found the Council at fault. The Council agrees to apologise to Mr D and will offer to meet him to discuss its actions in the case.

The complaint

1. The complainant (whom I refer to as Mr D) says the Council has failed to rectify obstructions caused by commercial waste bins on the pavement positioned near a zebra crossing and associated road markings. Mr D says this is a particular issue for people with impaired vision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mr D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I shared my draft decision with both parties.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

6. On 14 February 2024 Mr D complained to the Council about bins on the pavement near a zebra crossing which were obscuring sight of road crossing markings for pedestrians with impaired vision. The Council replied on 28 February that it would remove the bins. It did not give any timeframe for the action. Mr D asked the Council to escalate his complaint, and the Council sent its final response on 13 May. It said Recycling and Waste Supervisors had liaised with the Highways Department and both Teams supported the removal of the bins at the site. They were liaising with properties and stakeholders to agree an alternative for refuse storage and collection because the properties at the area did not have space to store bins. The Council was considering using waste sacks instead of bins to be collected daily.
7. The Council says that it replaced the guard rails at the site in May and moved bins up the street away from the road crossing and road markings. In October to November the Council states it held site meetings with Highways, Waste and Recycling and Housing Teams. I do not have a note of those meetings; the Council does not appear to have retained a record. The Council says Officers discussed waste storage and collection options including the removal of domestic and commercial bins. They also looked at whether nearby streets (including the street subsequently suggested by Mr D) could be used for bin storage. No suitable alternative site was identified. The Council’s Housing Team and Councillors further discussed options in December. Again I have no record of those discussions.
8. In January 2025 Mr D provided additional comments to the Council including asking whether a nearby street could be used to store the bins. I understand that month the Council again removed some domestic bins and relocated other commercial bins away from the sight lines for the road crossing. The Council says that residents moved the bins back to original spot.
9. In July the Council made a further site visit. This is not documented. The Council says it had further discussions about replacing bins with waste sacks for daily collection. There were concerns about the large volume of sacks that would be left on the pavement each day. In August the Council states it agreed to conduct a trial for waste sack collections. I do not have documentation to support what discussions took place. The trial runs from September to December. The Council is replacing commercial bins which it provided with waste sack collections. One commercial bin, not provided by the Council, will remain on the street, but the other bins will be removed. The Council says it will assess the trial after December.

What should have happened

10. The Council should ensure road crossings and associated road markings are not obscured for pedestrians. This is particularly important for pedestrians with impaired vision.
11. The Council does not have a set policy, but it will consider reports about obstructions on a pavement. Where the obstruction is caused by waste bins the Recycling and Waste Team will need to assess if there are alternative waste collection provisions available.
12. As good practice the Ombudsman would expect a council to keep a reasonable level of records to show how decisions are made to a change in service.

Was there fault by the Council

13. This has been a difficult case to investigate because of the absence of supporting records. The Council has not provided any evidence of how the case was discussed, notes of site meetings, a plan for the trial period and how it will be assessed. These are basic record keeping matters which we expect the Council to be able to evidence. In this case I am unable to verify any of the actions set out by the Council and that is fault.
14. The removal of bins from the site is not a straightforward matter. The Council must ensure waste storage and collection is in place for the properties (commercial and residential) on the street. Based on the limited information I have it appears the Council did try to alleviate the obstructions by moving the bins and replacing the guard rail in 2024. Unfortunately residents kept moving the bins back to their original position. The Council also states it considered whether alternative streets could be used to store bins, including the area suggested by Mr D. Due to the size of the commercial bins other sites were assessed as unsuitable. It is unclear why no action was taken to progress the case from February to July 2025. I consider that to be a period of five months delay. The Council has now agreed to a trial period this year to assess whether waste sacks, instead of bins, is a feasible option.
15. The Council has been vague about when the trial ends and has failed to tell me when the findings will be assessed and what factors will be considered as part of the assessment. As above, it is important for the Council to document its decision processes especially with a change to service, even on a trial basis.

Did the fault cause an injustice

16. There has been delay progressing the case which means the obstructions Mr D first complained about have taken longer than necessary to resolve. The lack of records by the Council means it has also been impossible to give Mr D a definitive explanation of what took place.

Back to top

Action

17. To remedy the injustice to Mr D the Council has agreed to send him a letter of apology and offer him a meeting (in person or by telephone) to discuss any outstanding concerns he may have. This will also allow Officers a chance to explain what the Council intends to do with its trial waste sack collection.
18. The Council will also make service improvements by reminding Officers to keep a record of any key decision making processes. The Council has clarified when the trial will end and how its findings will be assessed.
19. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions within four weeks of this case closing.

Back to top

Decision

20. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman