Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in waste bin provision. We are satisfied with the actions the Council has taken in response to the complaint. It apologised and reminded staff to prioritise future cases where there is good reason. It is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would achieve anything further.

The complaint

1. Mr B said the Council took too long to deliver a waste bin. Mr B said the Council gave no updates or gave false information when Mr B chased it. Mr B said after the bin was delivered a Council officer visited and questioned why Mr B had the bin. This all caused unnecessary stress, time and trouble chasing the Council, when Mr B is in ill health. Mr B wants compensation and answers to what went wrong.

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 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.

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

3. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr B ordered a new waste bin. The Council’s website says it aims to deliver the new bin within 30 working days from approval. Mr B says it took around two months. Over which time Mr B had unnecessary time and trouble telephoning the Council, and says it gave him wrong information which caused further frustration.
8. The Council accepted delay and apologised to Mr B for the impact of its fault. That is satisfactory action in response to the complaint. We would not investigate to establish the cause of the delay or any misinformation.
9. The Council said it will share information with relevant staff to ensure in future if experiencing delays, it prioritises cases where necessary. The Council accepts in Mr B’s case it should have prioritised his bin delivery given his ill health.
10. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would add to the Council’s investigation or achieve anything further to warrant our resource to investigate.
11. I have seen no evidence Mr B raised with the Council his concerns about a visit from a Council officer questioning why he has the bin. We would allow the Council the opportunity to investigate and respond first, so if Mr B wishes to pursue this, he should raise it with the Council first. I can see this would be upsetting to Mr B, but it is unlikely the Ombudsman would consider it caused enough injustice to justify an Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we are satisfied with the actions the Council has already taken. It has accepted fault, apologised and reminded staff to prioritise future cases where there is good reason.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman