Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision he will need to pay for a replacement bin after his was damaged. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s decision he would need to pay for a replacement recycling bin after his was damaged. Mr X says the Council sided with its contractors without any proper explanation and without fully disclosing its findings.

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. (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 I considered information on the Council’s website about its bin charging policy.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X asked the Council to replace his recycling bin after it was damaged during a collection. He said it was damaged due to a lack of care and rough handling by the refuse crew and by excessive banging of the bin by the crew during the collection process.
7. The Council told Mr X the damage appeared to be caused by wear and tear and did not accept it was caused by fault by the crew. It explained where damage is caused by wear and tear a charge applies for a replacement. This applies even if the damage occurs during a collection. It explained the shaking/banging of bins during a collection is a standard part of the collection process and is not fault by the collection crew. It asked Mr X to check the production date of the bin and if it was less than 10 yrs old, and so still in warranty, it would replace it free of charge.
8. Mr X was unable to check how old the bin was as he did not have the lid and did not recall when it was purchased.
9. The Council’s policy on charging for replacement bins is clearly published on its website. It states it expects bins to last for 10 years, after which time any damage will be attributed to fair wear and tear and a replacement is chargeable. It says this is because it is reasonable to expect the plastic to erode over time and the repeated lifting and movement of the bin may eventually cause damage. It says not all bins will have a date of manufacture on them and so it asks residents to make a note of their record of purchase as this will help prove how long they have had the bin.
10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault by the Council here. It has considered and responded to Mr X’s request in line with its published bin replacement policy which says that in these circumstances a charge will apply for a replacement bin. It clearly explained its decision and reasons to Mr X and it is a decision it is entitled to make.
11. We are not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at the Council's decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes it followed to make its decision. If, as here, we consider it followed those processes correctly we cannot question or consider whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether Mr X disagrees with it.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman