Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a missed waste collection. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr B said the Council:
• Missed four consecutive weeks of garden waste collections.
• Sent an officer to his home unannounced who was confrontational and removed a garden waste bin.
• Delayed its complaint response and failed to answer all the concerns.
• Failed to respond to an MP and to a formal Freedom of Information request.
2. Mr B said the Council’s actions caused distress, time and trouble. Mr B wants the Council to apologise, return the bin, and refund the cost of the bin.

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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Ombudsman appreciates that missed collections are annoying, frustrating, and inconvenient.
7. But we do not investigate all the complaints we receive. In deciding whether to investigate we need to consider various tests. These include the alleged injustice to the person complaining. We only investigate the most serious complaints.
8. When it comes to waste collections, mistakes can happen, and from time-to-time most people will have a missed collection. So, we will not investigate Mr B’s complaint, because the injustice caused is not significant enough to justify our resource to investigate.
9. While investigating the missed collections the Council officer e-mailed Mr B’s wife to apologise for the service failure. The officer said they would bring over some compostable bags for Mr & Mrs B to use while the bin was full and waiting to be emptied. Unfortunately, Mrs B did not see the e-mails before the officer’s visit, and so the visit came as a surprise. The Council apologised for the distress. While there, the officer removed a garden waste bin without a permit.
10. The Council has explained the bins belong to the Council. Although Mr B paid a fee for a permit, that is for the garden waste collection service, not for ownership of a bin.
11. Mr B is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with his complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.
12. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights. The ICO is better placed to consider how the Council responded to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would lead to a significantly different outcome, and the ICO is better placed to consider concerns about data requests.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman