The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr X complained the Council unfairly removed its garden waste collection service for his road due to access concerns, but his neighbouring road also has narrow access but still has the service. There was fault by the Council for failing to provide evidence of its decision making and for poor complaint handling. The Council has agreed with our recommendations to provide Mr X with an apology, a financial remedy, and to provide proper records after reassessing both roads.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I refer to as Mr X, complained the Council withdrew its garden waste collection service for his road due to access issues and removed his bin. He said a neighbouring road is also narrow but still has the service.
This caused him inconvenience with time and money to take trips to the tip and also frustration; he said it was unfair as the Council had not provided a reasonable explanation for this. He wanted the Council to return his bin and continue the service to his road.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘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
I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered his views.
I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided.
I considered information on the Council’s website about its garden waste scheme.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
What I found
What happened On 7 February 2022, Mr X complained to the Council after receiving a letter informing him the garden waste collection service was being stopped for his road, due to concerns about road access issues. Mr X said his neighbouring road (Road B) is also narrow access, but after speaking to a neighbour who lived there, he was told they still continued to have the service.
On 23 February, Mr X contacted the Council again, adding the Council had removed his bin and he said there was no justification for this and wanted an explanation as to why the service remained with Road B which, in his view, had narrower access than his.
On 9 March, Mr X chased up a response to his complaint.
On 14 March, the Council emailed Mr X apologising and stated as he had not received a Stage One response, it would move to Stage Two of its complaints process.
On 8 April, the Council responded it had removed the garden waste scheme due to the restricted access on his road, highlighting the vehicles it used are less manoeuvrable than normal waste collection vehicles. In the interests of safety, an assessment had been carried out and the decision had been made that “suitable safe access could not be achieved” and so it removed the service. It said it may review this in future and advised Mr X he could take his waste to the local tip.
Mr X then complained to the Ombudsman, adding his neighbour on Road B had originally been told by the Council their garden waste service would be removed, but was later reinstated. Mr X was dissatisfied with the Council’s response, saying it was unfair as he had witnessed the garden waste vehicle having to reverse into Road B to collect the bins, but his road was wider with no restrictions, so the Council’s decision did not make sense to him.
In response to my enquiries, the Council said following a number of missed collection reports and feedback from its Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) drivers, an assessment was carried out in December 2021 on roads experiencing recurring collection issues (including Mr X’s road) which led to the decision some roads would have the service stopped due to health and safety concerns.
The Council did not have paperwork for the assessments for these roads as the HGV assessor verbally reported their findings to the Council’s Environmental Services Manager.
The Council initially informed me Road B was also not eligible for the waste garden service. In a further response, it said this was incorrect and two properties that are accessible from the end of Road B, had had the service reinstated.
The Council’s website outlines terms and conditions to its garden waste scheme including: “not all properties are suitable for this service, either due to access restrictions for our collection freighters or lack of space to store the bin or to put them out in front of property for collection, etc”. It also said “we reserve the right to assess the application and to determine whether or not your property is suitable for the wheeled bin green waste collection scheme”.
The Council stated a response was not sent to Mr X’s complaint in February due to staff shortages within the waste service.
I asked if alternative options had been considered to enable the continuation of the service to Mr X’s road. The Council stated it had looked at the possibility of smaller vehicles, but this was not an option currently as its fleet is not due to be replaced for another three years.
In speaking to Mr X, he had spoken to two people on Road B who still had their garden waste bins and they said the Council was still collecting them. Mr X disagreed with the Council’s statement that two properties at the end of Road B were eligible, he said those he spoke to were not located there.
Analysis I have noted the Council said it had considered other options for Mr X but only mentioned restrictions with the vehicles it used, but it did not expand on any other possibilities.
Garden waste collection services are not a statutory service that must be provided by councils and the Council’s own terms and conditions allow for this to be withdrawn under certain circumstances, however I would expect this to be applied fairly and consistently.
If both Mr X’s road and Road B have narrow access and the Council has stopped the service from one because of access concerns, but not the other, then the Council should be able to show and justify its position clearly.
I acknowledge the Council has said only two properties at the end of Road B are eligible for the service and Mr X disputes this; either way, the Council has based the decision to remove the service from Mr X on an assessment of which it has no written record or demonstrable evidence, and so I find the Council at fault. This lack of transparency has highlighted a sense of unfairness, which has caused avoidable uncertainty to Mr X.
Complaint handling The Council did not answer Mr X’s complaint at Stage One due to staff shortages, resulting in delay and led to its escalation straight to a final response. I accept the Council’s reason, but this missed the opportunity for the complaint to be looked at in two stages.
Mr X clearly wanted an explanation from the Council for the apparent difference of treatment between his road and Road B, as they both have narrow access. However, in its final response, the Council did not address this specific point about why Road B continued to receive the service, which was the main basis of his complaint. In my view, this was poor communication by the Council as it failed to give him a fully considered response. This is further added by conflicting information the Council gave to me in its response to my enquiries.
The Council has stated its position to Mr X and why it has reached this decision, without providing supporting evidence that it has fairly applied its garden waste collection policy to both roads. I find fault with the Council with its complaint handling. I am satisfied this caused an injustice to Mr X with additional frustration and inconvenience, with his time and trouble pursuing this complaint.
Agreed action
To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions: Within one month of the final decision: Provide Mr X with a written apology for how it handled his complaint and for being unable to evidence its assessment of his road and Road B; and Pay Mr X £150 for his time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.
Within two months of the final decision: Reassess Mr X’s road and Road B and produce proper records explaining the decisions made for either removing or keeping the garden waste collection service; Send a copy of its decision making to Mr X for his road; and Put in place measures to ensure future decisions within the Garden Waste Service are properly documented, providing evidence this has been communicated to appropriate staff members.
Final decision
I found the Council at fault which caused an injustice to Mr X. The Council has agreed with the recommendations to remedy this and I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman