Summary: We will not investigate Dr Z's complaint about the Council's decision his property is suitable for a wheeled bin collection service. This is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

The complaint

1. Dr Z complains about the Council’s decision his property is suitable for a wheeled bin collection service. He says there is no safe or practical location to store wheeled bins at his property and disputes the Council’s assessment that sufficient space is available. He believes the Council has not properly applied the relevant criteria in its Waste and Recycling Collection Policy. Dr Z says the matter has caused him stress and inconvenience and asks the Council to reassess the property and allow continued use of a sack-only collection service.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council assessed Dr Z's property against its Waste and Recycling Collection Policy and decided there was enough space for wheeled bins.
6. Dr Z appealed the assessment, arguing his property’s storage and access constraints made it unsuitable for wheeled bins and that he should receive an alternative collection service using sacks and boxes. The Council considered Dr Z's concerns and reviewed its assessment but decided the property did not meet the criteria for an alternative collection service.
7. The Council said factors such as parking arrangements, the need to move bins around vehicles, the driveway slope, and rear access constraints did not make the property unsuitable for the standard wheeled bin service. It also explained residents are responsible for their own bin storage arrangements and that Dr Z could opt out of the service and arrange his own waste disposal should he wish.
8. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether someone disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
9. We will not investigate Dr Z’s complaint because further investigation is unlikely to find fault in the way the Council reached its decision. Based on the evidence I have seen the Council considered his concerns, assessed the property against its policy, and reviewed the relevant information before deciding that wheeled bins were appropriate for the property.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Dr Z’s complaint; this is because further investigation is unlikely to find evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman