The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s bulky waste collection service. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to reschedule Mr X’s collection or refund him. Even if there were Council fault, its decision does not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice warranting an investigation. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s terms and conditions for the service, and it was for Mr X to satisfy himself he was content with them before ordering that service.
The complaint
Mr X ordered and paid for a bulky waste collection by the Council but did not put the waste out on the right date. He asked the Council to reschedule the collection without charging him again. The Council refused this request, saying its terms and conditions do not allow this. Mr X booked and paid for a second collection and the Council took the waste.
Mr X complains the Council: charged him again when his first bulky waste collection did not happen because of his error; has unclear terms and conditions for its bulky waste collections.
Mr X says he is £45 out of pocket because he had to pay twice for the service. He wants the Council to: repay him the £45; change its terms and conditions for the service so they cover failed collections when the customer does not present the items on the right day; change its ‘no refunds’ clause because this could mean no refund is given even if the collection failed because it was the Council’s fault.
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 or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide: there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information from Mr X, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
It was not Council fault which resulted in Mr X’s bulky waste not being taken first time. Mr X accepts it was his error which led to this. But he disputes the Council’s decision to refuse his request for the failed collection to be rescheduled, rather than him having to pay a second time. The Council’s terms and conditions for the collections say no refunds are available under any circumstances. I recognise Mr X was asking the Council to reschedule the missed collection, not for a refund. But his rescheduling request amounted to him asking the Council to incur its service costs to attend the waste collection point twice, for the cost of only one attendance. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council requiring Mr X to pay for another collection here to warrant an investigation.
We must also consider whether a matter has caused someone a significant personal injustice. Mr X’s claimed injustice is the £45 waste collection charge he considers he should not have had to pay twice. Even if it were fault for the Council not to provide Mr X with a rescheduled collection for no further charge, nor provide a refund, the cost involved is not enough injustice to justify us investigating.
Mr X considers the Council’s terms and conditions for the bulky waste collections were unclear. He says they should explain what would happen in the event of a failed collection when the customer does not present the items on the required day. The Council considers its terms and conditions appropriately advise people ordering the service that no refunds are available. While the terms and conditions do not cover every potential situation, the Council’s information about the collection service state it is a non-refundable one.
There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its terms and conditions to justify an investigation. As someone opting into this Council service, it was for Mr X to satisfy himself that he was content with its terms and conditions before ordering the first collection.
Mr X is concerned the Council’s ‘no refunds’ clause does not ‘legally cover every eventuality’ as it could mean a customer gets no refund even if the Council was at fault. Should that situation arise, it would be for a complainant to raise the matter and for the Council to decide whether it should issue a refund in those circumstances. But we deal with complaints on their own facts, and that was not the situation in Mr X’s case because his first collection did not fail because of Council fault.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because: there is not enough evidence of fault in the Council requiring Mr X to pay for another bulky waste collection to warrant an investigation; and even if it were fault for the Council not to provide Mr X with a rescheduled collection or a refund, this would not cause a significant personal injustice which would justify us investigating; and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in its terms and conditions to justify an investigation; and it was for Mr X to satisfy himself that he was content with the Council’s terms and conditions before opting into the waste collection service.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman