The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr D complained the Council’s waste contractors persistently used his wheeled refuse bin and recycling bin to collect rubbish and recycling from other households. The Council acknowledged it was at fault, saying this practice was unacceptable. We found further fault in the Council’s complaint handling. We considered these faults caused Mr D to suffer unnecessary inconvenience, time and trouble. The Council accepted these findings and at the end of this statement, we explain what action it has agreed to remedy Mr D’s injustice.
The complaint
I have called the complainant ‘Mr D’. He complains the Council’s waste contractors have persistently used his wheeled refuse bin and recycling bin to collect rubbish and recycling from other households. In 2021 Mr D complained to the Council about the practice and was reassured it would stop. But Mr D said by early 2022 the practice had resumed and the Council had not replied to his further contact about this matter. Consequently, he contacted this office to complain.
Mr D says because of the contractor’s practice his bins quickly became dirty and smelly and needed replacement.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about councils and certain other bodies. Where an individual, organisation or private company is providing services on behalf of a council, we can investigate complaints about the actions of these providers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 25(7), as amended) We investigate ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
Before issuing this decision statement I considered Mr D’s complaint and any supporting information he provided, such as correspondence with the Council pre-dating our investigation. I also made enquiries of the Council and took account of any further information it provided.
I also gave both Mr D and the Council a draft decision setting out my proposed findings and invited comments. I took account of any comments or evidence they provided.
What I found
The key facts The Council has the legal responsibility to collect household waste and recyclable waste from Mr D’s home address. It contracts with a company to provide that waste collection service on its behalf.
Mr D lives in an area where many residents do not have waste bins due to constraints of space and/or the local terrain. Those residents bag their waste instead. However, Mr D does have two waste bins – one for household refuse and one for recycling.
In June 2021 Mr D complained about the actions of the refuse contractor. He said they used his bins to collect waste from those neighbouring properties without their own bin. He said that this caused his bins to become messier and smellier as a result. The Council upheld the complaint. In July 2021 it replaced Mr D’s bins as a goodwill gesture. Mr D notes however, he had to chase the Council to provide the replacement bins as on the day it initially said it would deliver new bins it did not do so. Mr D had changed his plans that day to await delivery.
Even before the Council delivered the replacement bins, Mr D asked to escalate his complaint as the practice of using his bin to collect others waste continued. Twice more in July 2021 Mr D contacted the Council to say the practice continued (i.e. after the Council had replaced the bins). The Council did not reply to these contacts until September 2021. It apologised to Mr D. It noted the waste contractor should carry a ‘host bin’ on its refuse vehicles to collect bagged waste. It said the contractor’s practice was therefore unacceptable. It said it would request evidence the contractor had taken ‘corrective action’. The Council has told us that it had a further conversation with the waste contractor about the practice, but this was not recorded in its records.
Mr D says for a time matters improved but the practice did not stop. So, in January 2022 Mr D complained again to the Council. He received no reply to this further complaint, nor when he chased a reply the following month. Mr D therefore contacted this office and asked us to investigate.
Further to our enquiries the Council apologised to Mr D for its failure to reply to his complaint of January 2022. It said that its refuse contractor had recruited new staff and while their training continued it had told the contractor again that its practice was unacceptable. The Council said it would again provide further replacement bins to Mr D as a gesture of goodwill.
My findings
I consider the Council is at fault for the actions of its contractor. The Council has acknowledged the practice of using Mr D’s bins as ‘host bins’ for collecting waste from neighbouring properties is unacceptable.
But I also have concerns about the Council’s complaint handling. Mr D had to wait several weeks for a response to his complaint made in June 2021. He then received no response to his subsequent complaint made in January 2022 until he contacted this office around two months later. The Council is also unable to evidence that it took the action it promised in September 2021; which was to ensure the contractor provide evidence of ‘corrective action’ to prevent a repeat of the practice causing Mr D’s complaint. These failings justify a finding of fault also.
I consider these faults have caused Mr D injustice. He has suffered inconvenience in having to clean out his bins more often than would be the case if they were used only for his own household waste. He has also experienced unnecessary time and trouble in having to raise his complaint about this matter repeatedly and because of the delays in receiving replies.
Agreed action
During this investigation the Council took some steps which I consider go some way to remedying Mr D’s injustice. I welcome its further apology to Mr D and its commitment to a further replacement of his bins. I also welcome the Council has accepted my findings set out above.
The Council has also agreed to my recommendations that it take further action to remedy the injustice caused to Mr D. Within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint, it will: provide Mr D with a payment of £100 to recognise his inconvenience, time and trouble; it will also clarify with him when his bins will be replaced; obtain a statement in writing from its contractor of the steps it has taken to prevent a repeat of the practice causing Mr D’s complaint; that statement will be shared with Mr D for his records; commit that for a period of at least three months it will actively monitor with Mr D to ensure the practice of using his bins as host bins does not continue. This will consist of: contacting Mr D at least once a month to check if he has encountered any further problems with waste collection; this can be by email or telephone; providing Mr D with a single named point of contact so he can report any further problems he experiences with waste collection.
The Council is prepared to extend the arrangement described at paragraph 18c) above for longer than three months, if during this time Mr D experiences further problems with waste collection.
Final decision
For reasons set out above I have upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council causing injustice to Mr D. The Council has agreed action that I consider will remedy that injustice. Consequently, I have completed my investigation satisfied with its response.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman