Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of recycling collections. This is because the injustice claimed is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council partially emptied his recycling and did not collect his glass recycling. He says the Council failed to apply its waste collection policies.

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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X says the Council partially emptied his recycling and did not collect his glass recycling.
7. Mr X complained to the Council in November 2025. He says his recycling was partially emptied and the glass was not collected. He says the Council did not collect his recycling in December 2025. He also says the Council’s policy says missed bins should be collected within 2 days of being reported but Council staff did not acknowledge the policy.
8. The Council issued a final response in December 2025. It explained the recycling was collected but there were items stuck in the bottom and photographs provided by Mr X showed contaminated items in the recycling.
9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. I recognise the Council’s decision to partially empty the recycling and not collect the glass will have caused some inconvenience and frustration. However, the number of collections affected, and the injustice claimed, are not significant enough injustice to warrant further investigation.
10. Mr X also complains about the Council’s handling of a SAR request. The Information Commissioner can consider whether the Council has breached data protection law. There is no charge for making a complaint to the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner is in a better position than the Ombudsman to consider such complaints, has the expertise to decide such matters and can make necessary recommendations. There is not good reason for us to investigate the matter instead.
11. Mr X 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

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman