Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about waste collection and noise nuisance. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to change its waste collection schedule. There is no evidence of a statutory noise nuisance at this stage; environmental health would need to investigate to find that out and decide whether to act on any nuisance.

The complaint

1. Mr B said the Council failed to stop a statutory noise nuisance caused by waste collection. Mr B said the Council failed to investigate the nuisance, failed to adjust the collection schedule, and failed to address the core issues. Mr B said the early morning noise causes sleep deprivation, daily fatigue, stress and anxiety. Mr B wants the Council to stop all waste collections before 8am, repair the faulty vehicle, prevent staff from congregating early, and pay compensation.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused significant enough injustice to the person who complained 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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 Council has a statutory duty to collect household waste and recycling. It is for the Council to decide how it will achieve this. Mr B wants the Council to start its collections later in the day, but it has explained why that is not operationally possible.
7. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. We cannot challenge the Council’s decision unless there is fault in its decision making. In this case, I am satisfied the Council has taken the right steps in considering relevant information and explained its decision to Mr B. I understand Mr B disagrees and is concerned by the noise. However, this is not evidence of fault in the Council’s decision or the way it has investigated. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome Mr B wants of the Council completing its waste collections at different times.
8. Mr B complains of noise nuisance caused by the waste collection vehicles and crews. The Council has asked staff to keep noise and disruption to a minimum but cannot guarantee there will be no disruption. The Council’s environmental health team can investigate and find out if there is any statutory noise nuisance for which it has powers to act upon. The Council did not refer Mr B’s concerns to environmental health when it could have done. However, it did tell Mr B how to refer the concerns himself.
9. We do not investigate all 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. I do not consider the Council’s failure to refer the concerns to environmental health causes a significant injustice, as it correctly signposted Mr B to that department. We do not know whether the noise nuisance is a statutory nuisance without an environmental health investigation.
10. 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.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault in the core issue of refusing to adjust waste collection time. We could not achieve that outcome for Mr B. The Council correctly advised that environmental health investigates noise nuisance concerns. If Mr B has not referred those concerns already, he should do so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman