Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s bin contractor not delivering food waste caddy liners to him after several requests and the delay in providing the liners. There is insufficient significant personal injustice to Mr X from the matters complained of to warrant us investigating. We also cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X lives in the Council’s area. The Council contracts out its household waste collection services, including a food waste bin. It provides a food waste caddy and liners free of charge to households. Mr X complains:
1. he made numerous requests within a two-week period for caddy liners to be delivered to his house by the contractor but they were not delivered and the contractor closed his requests as completed;
2. it took six weeks for him to receive the caddy liners.
2. Mr X says as a council taxpayer, he is concerned the contractor is overcharging the Council. He also says he had to pay for some caddy liners.
3. Mr X says he would like to see how we Council can avoid such a case happening again by identifying the root causes. He suggests the Council should make sure it is not being overcharged by its contractor for his and other residents’ service and suggests it monitors and reviews its contractor’s performance.

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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council accepts its contractor, acting on its behalf, did not provide Mr X with the caddy liners he ordered how or as quickly as it would have expected. Officers upheld Mr X’s complaint and apologised.
7. However, we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We recognise Mr X had to buy some food waste caddy liners with his own money and had to contact the contractor several times, which would have caused him some inconvenience and expense. But these are not sufficiently significant personal injustices to him which warrant us investigating. Mr X also notes he was not receiving a service for which he pays some of his council tax. But the amount of that tax going towards caddy liners which he initially did not receive is insufficient injustice to justify an investigation. The matters Mr X has complained of here did not cause such a level of significant injustice to him that it warrants an investigation.
8. We recognise Mr X wants to find out why the system for ordering the liners initially failed but then worked and wants the Council to investigate whether it is being overcharged by its contractor. But we investigate complaints about fault causing injustice to complainants. It is for councils to satisfy themselves that their contracts and processes are in place to provide services for their residents. We cannot order councils to investigate and assess those matters. That we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants from his complaint is a further reason why we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• there is not enough significant personal injustice to him from the matters complained of to justify us investigating; and
• we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman