Summary: We will not investigate Dr B’s complaint about the Council’s delay providing a larger refuse bin. This is because an investigation would not add to the Council’s own investigation.

The complaint

1. Dr B complains the Council delayed providing a larger refuse bin which she requested. Dr B says delivery dates were missed and she was told conflicting information by the Council and its contractor. Dr B says this caused her distress and inconvenience, and she was concerned about hygiene. Dr B would like the Council to: issue a written apology; pay her compensation; and, review its processes for prioritising urgent bin requests.

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 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 could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation.

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

3. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm, or distress as a direct result of faults or failures.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Dr B.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Dr B requested a larger general waste bin on 15 August 2025. Dr B says her household includes a young baby with medical needs, so the standard bin is not large enough.
7. On 10 September the Council told Dr B her request had been approved and the new bin would be delivered within five working days. Dr B says the Council did not deliver the new bin as scheduled on three occasions in September. Dr B says during this period she received conflicting information from the Council and its contractor. The Council delivered the new bin on 2 October.
8. The Council has apologised to Dr B for the delay providing a larger bin. The Council has also explained the reasons for the delay and why Dr B was told conflicting information.
9. This was a suitable response from the Council. The delay by the Council providing a new bin was not excessive. I find Dr B has not suffered a serious or significant injustice which would justify public money being spent on an investigation or the pursuit of a financial remedy by the Ombudsman.
10. So, an investigation would not add to the Council’s own investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Dr B’s complaint because an investigation would not add to the Council’s own investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman