The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council will not let the complainant keep a bin store permanently locked. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Ms X, says the Council has broken an agreement that she could keep a bin store permanently locked and the crew would unlock it on collection days. Ms X says the Council is discriminating against her and failing to make reasonable adjustments.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Ombudsman investigates 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 an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6)) We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether or not an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
Organisations will often be able to show they have properly taken account of the Equality Act if they have considered the impact their decisions will have on the individuals affected.
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council. This includes the complaint and email correspondence. I also considered our Assessment Code and comments Ms X made in reply to a draft of this decision.
My assessment
The Council provided Ms X with an assisted collection service. The crew collected and returned the bins to her back garden. Ms X says the Council did not provide this service but the Council says there are no records of any missed collections. Ms X asked to change the arrangement so she would keep the bins in a storage unit on the property boundary. The Council agreed and arranged for an agency to build the unit.
Ms X cancelled the appointment to build the unit when she found out the Council would not let her keep the unit permanently locked and for it to be unlocked by the crew. Ms X says this was agreed by an officer and the system could only work if the unit is kept locked. Ms X says an unlocked store would attract fly-tipping.
The Council explained Ms X could keep the unit locked between collections but the crew would not be responsible for locking and unlocking. The Council said it does not have the resources to provide this service and does not do so. It said it could not guarantee every crew would have a key or code to unlock the store. The Council also said there was no record of anyone agreeing the crew would unlock the unit. The Council told Ms X it does not have a recording of the phone call with the officer Ms X spoke to. It has, however, checked with the officer who confirmed she did not agree Ms X could have a locked unit. Ms X says she kept notes of the call and says the officer agreed to permanent locking.
The Council offered to resume collecting from the garden. The Council says it could not do this because Ms X has put a lock on the gate. Ms X says this is due to an attempted burglary and, as an alternative, she says the Council should unlock her gate. Last week the Council did an assisted collection by using a different gate.
I will not start an investigation because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council made adjustments by providing an assisted collection from the back garden. Ms X says this did not happen but the Council says there are no records of any missed collections. And, it has resumed the service.
The Council agreed to Ms X’s proposal for a store and arranged help to build it. It said she could keep the store locked to deter fly-tipping but she would need to unlock the store for collections. Ms X would need to unlock the store to place her rubbish in the bins so it does not seem unreasonable for the Council to require that she keep the store unlocked until after the collection. There is no evidence the officer agreed Ms X could keep the store locked and it seems unlikely the Council would have made such an agreement because it is not a service the Council offers. Ms X says other councils allow crews to unlock stores but it is for each council to decide how it will operate its service.
The Council has taken account of Ms X’s needs by providing an assisted collection, by trying to accommodate her wishes, and by explaining why it cannot agree to all her requests. There is nothing to suggest fault or discrimination. Ms X says her request to keep the store locked is a reasonable adjustment under the Equalities Act. The Council has considered its duties under the Equalities Act and Ms X would need to take legal action if she wants to argue that a locked store is a reasonable adjustment. It is not our role to interpret the law and we cannot determine that not allowing Ms X to keep the store locked is a breach of the law.
Final decision
We will not investigate this complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman