Summary: We will not investigate part of Mr X’s complaint that the Council replaced his large waste bin with a smaller bin without justification because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any meaningful outcome. We will not investigate Mr X’s view that the Council should reimburse him £25 for a replacement bin because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
1. removed his large waste bin and replaced it with a smaller bin without justification; and
2. charged him £25 to replace the smaller bin with a larger one.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him frustration and time and trouble.

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Removal of original larger bin

6. Mr X complained the Council removed his larger waste bin without justification.
7. In its complaint response the Council told Mr X it conducts regular checks on properties that have larger waste bins to ensure they are still required. It told Mr X it sent him a form to complete, but it never received a response. It therefore replaced the larger bin with a smaller one.
8. Mr X challenged the Council and said he did not receive the letter. The Council checked its systems and said it had sent the letter.
9. We will not investigate this matter. The Council said it sent the letter and Mr X said he did not receive the letter. We could not establish, even on a balance of probabilities, whether the letter was sent or received. Consequently, an investigation is unlikely to achieve any outcome and we will not investigate.

£25 charge to replace smaller bin

10. Mr X contacted the Council and paid £25 for a replacement large bin. Mr X asked the Council to reimburse this cost. The Councild told Mr X it would not reimburse him because it had sent the letter as outlined above.
11. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. 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. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
12. Mr X’s claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate part of Mr X’s complaint because an investigation is unlikely to achieve any meaningful outcome. We will not investigate the remainder because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman