Summary: Mr B complained about persistent problems with the Council’s garden waste collection service. We upheld the complaint, finding the Council missed opportunities to resolve the problems Mr B reported. This caused Mr B avoidable frustration, inconvenience and put him to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council accepts these findings. At the end of this statement, we set out action it has agreed to remedy this injustice and improve its service.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mr B’. He complains that he experienced persistent problems with the Council’s collection of his garden waste, a service he paid for and used between April 2021 and February 2023. Mr B says the Council often missed collections and sometimes, after collection, left the bin in the wrong and inconvenient location. Mr B also found reporting missed collections difficult because of how the Council’s online reporting tool works.
2. Mr B says as a result he suffered the inconvenience of repeatedly contacting the Council trying to resolve this matter.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. Before issuing this decision statement I considered:

• Mr B’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information he provided;
• exchanges of correspondence between Mr B and the Council about the matters complained about, which pre-dated this investigation;
• comments and information provided to us by the Council in reply to our enquiries;
• any relevant Ombudsman guidance referred to below.

7. I gave Mr B and the Council a chance to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any comments they made, or further information they provided, before issuing this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

8. Mr B lives in a house set back from the street, located to the rear of other properties. To reach it there is a driveway of around 60 metres, which also serves another house adjacent. The driveway forms part of the adjacent home, with Mr B enjoying easement rights, enabling him to use it. Mr B has owned and lived in his house for over 20 years.
9. This complaint concerns the Council’s delivery of a garden waste collection service, which costs £60 a year and that Mr B subscribed to in April 2021. But before this time Mr B had occasionally experienced problems with collection of his recyclable and non-recyclable waste. Through contact with the Council in 2019, he understood to leave his waste at the edge of his property; i.e. at the furthest end of the driveway from the street. Throughout the events covered by this complaint this is where Mr B left his recyclable, non-recyclable and garden waste for collection.

Chronology of events

10. Mr B first wrote to the Council about problems with his garden waste collection in December 2021. He said since signing up for the garden waste service in April 2021, Council contractors had failed to collect his waste on five or six occasions. He said following the most recent incident the contractor had returned a few days later to collect the waste. But they left the bin on the street and did not return it to the edge of his home. The Council says it has no record of receiving this letter, although Mr B says he has an email which confirms its receipt.
11. Mr B next wrote to the Council to complain in June 2022. This followed a missed collection of garden waste the previous day. He said he had tried to report the missed collection using an online reporting tool but could not do so. This was because the tool recorded that Mr B had failed to present the waste for collection. Mr B said because of the repeat missed collections he wanted the Council either refund him or offer him a free service for the 2023-24 financial year.
12. Two weeks later Mr B reported another missed collection.
13. At the beginning of July 2022, the Council sent Mr B an acknowledgment to his contacts. It asked him if the problems continued. Mr B responded saying its waste contractors had returned to collect the waste after he reported the missed collections. But that he wanted a reply to his complaint.
14. The same officer replied to Mr B and offered to be a point of contact with him. The officer said the Council would monitor collection. He also said that sometimes waste collection crews would miss ‘location messages’ linked to an address. On receipt Mr B queried if this was a reply to his complaint.
15. At the end of July 2022, the Council wrote again to Mr B and agreed to his suggestion that it provide a free service for the 2023/24 financial year.
16. In mid-August Mr B got back in touch to report the contractors had left his garden waste bin blocking the drive and in front of his neighbour’s property. Mr B then reported missed collections in September and October. Each time he emailed the named officer to let him know. Mr B received no acknowledgement or reply to these emails. So, he went on to chase the Council to respond.
17. After which Mr B received a further response from the officer dealing with his enquiries. They apologised for the delay in reply. The Council said it had liaised with the contractor. The crew collecting the waste were new and unfamiliar with the route and this led to missed collections. The officer said the Council would reintroduce monitoring of the collection. He also invited Mr B to a meeting at the location.
18. In mid-November Mr B reported the contractor returning the bin to the incorrect location.
19. In late January 2023 Mr B reported another missed collection. Again, the website reporting tool said he had not presented garden waste for collection. Mr B asked for a refund of the 2022/23 subscription fee. He no longer wanted to use the service.
20. The Council again apologised and refunded Mr B as requested. In explanation for the problems Mr B experienced, the Council again pointed to unfamiliar crews working on the route.
21. In February 2023 Mr B contacted this office wanting to pursue his complaint. He said he had not received a refund.
22. We asked the Council to clarify if it had completed its consideration of Mr B’s complaint. It told us that its correspondence with Mr B consisted of responses to his service requests, rather than consideration of his complaint via its corporate complaint procedure. However, the Council did not consider it could provide a more thorough response using the complaint procedure at that stage. And it had given Mr B a refund as requested.
23. The Council also sent us comments accompanying copies of its communications with Mr B. These cited terms and conditions for residents when they subscribe to the garden waste collection service. The Council asks residents to leave their waste at the edge of their property within “arm’s reach” of the pavement for collection. The Council also reserves the right to cancel the service where there are access difficulties.
24. We decided to investigate the complaint. We wanted to consider in more detail how the Council responded to the multiple reports of missed collections by Mr B and to consider how these terms and conditions applied in practice. We also wanted to know if the problems Mr B experienced could be affecting others.

Our investigation

25. In response to our enquiries the Council clarified its policy around leaving waste for collection at the property edge, within ‘arm’s reach’ of the pavement. The Council says it recognises there are properties like Mr B’s where the property edge is not within the arm’s reach of the pavement. It says in such cases it takes a pragmatic approach. It also recognised in this case that Mr B left his green waste for collection where advised in the past. The Council confirmed therefore that it did not refer to those terms and conditions as a reason for why Mr B had experienced problems with garden waste collection. Although, its officer had considered them when responding to Mr B’s contacts.
26. We asked the Council to clarify how it sought to identify properties that were like Mr B’s, so the contractor’s collection crews would not miss them. The Council told us that collection crews have technology that will flag certain addresses on each route. There are different flags for different issues. For example, properties that have experienced repeat missed collections or which it considers ‘problematic’. It also keeps a ‘special requirement list’ for some properties. This includes properties where the occupier cannot put waste on the kerb edge; for example, because of disability. If a property is on the special requirement list the crew must input into a database during the round, to record they have collected waste from that property.
27. The Council said that it had monitored collection from Mr B’s address once in July 2022 and then three times in November and December 2022. This involved either a Council officer or a manager from the contractor accompanying the crew. On all these occasions it had collected Mr B’s garden waste.
28. The Council explained in detail that its contract with its contractor required that it met acceptable performance standards. That these included ensuring there were a minimum of missed collections. Also, that it kept detailed data about missed collections and the contractor would incur a financial penalty if it fell short of those standards.
29. The Council explained its contractor had experienced problems with retainment and recruitment of staff, given nationwide shortages in HGV drivers. Consequently, it had used more agency staff in 2022, who were less familiar with routes and systems used by the contractor. It sent us details of actions taken by the contractor to resolve this. It also sent us figures for how many complaints about the garden waste service it received in the years 21/22 and 22/23. These showed a decline over time, which the Council considered showed its performance was improving.
30. It recognised however that in this case Mr B had experienced an unacceptably poor service. Between April 2022 and February 2023, it had missed seven of 19 collections (compared with one missed collection for his non-recyclable and recyclable waste). It recognised it had not used the on-board technology its crews had available as it should. In particular, that it had not added Mr B’s address to its special requirement list, which it had now done for its other waste collection services. Further, that some of its customer service was poor, with Mr B experiencing unacceptable delays in receiving acknowledgment or replies to his emails.
31. It said it could not prevent Mr B’s lack of access to the online reporting tool when it recorded (wrongly) that he had not put his waste out for collection. It explained that to do so, risked residents simply requesting collection where they had failed to put waste out in time. Instead, the Council needed to check individual reports that this information was wrong. For example, by checking on-board cameras fitted to waste vehicles.
32. The Council noted that its £60 cheque to Mr B was cashed. But as he said he had not received this, the Council said it had made another £60 payment direct to his bank. It said it also wanted to apologise. Its Head of Service would do so in person, if Mr B would welcome this.
33. Since issuing draft findings in this case, I have established Mr B did receive the £60 cheque. It was cashed, mistaken for another payment, as the payee details were not clear. Mr B also confirmed payment of £60 direct to his bank account. Recognising he had received a double payment Mr B wrote a cheque to the Council for £60. So, he has received a net £60.
34. The Council has also sent me details of recent training delivered to staff setting out its expectations when it comes to recording service requests and complaints about waste collection.

My findings

35. I find the Council and its contractor were at fault for the persistent problems Mr B experienced with garden waste collection after subscribing to its service in April 2021. In particular:

• it repeatedly missed collections;
• it did not always return his bin to the correct location;
• despite being aware of these issues and monitoring for a time it failed to prevent a repeat. Most significantly it did not add Mr B’s address to its special requirement list and / or make use of other on-board ‘flags’ for its crews to reduce the likelihood of further collection problems.

36. I accept that the use of inexperienced crews, caused by the contractor’s difficulties in recruiting and retaining permanent staff, contributed to these problems. Where such difficulties arise, we accept this can lead to service failings that are unavoidable in the short-term. But we still consider such service failings as a fault.
37. A further fault in this case was the poor customer service Mr B received. As the Council noted, there were delays in acknowledging and replying to some of his emails. But also, the Council never made it clear to Mr B whether it had registered his dissatisfaction with its service as a complaint. Nor, if it had, which of its replies (if any) it made under that complaint procedure. At no point did it signpost Mr B to the next stage of its complaint procedure or to this office, as we would expect.
38. All that said, I am grateful to the Council for the comprehensive reply to my enquiries and its candour in recognising fault in this case. I am satisfied that its policy on collection should not penalise residents who live in properties like Mr B, which do not have direct access on to the pavement. Also, that it has measures in place to identify such properties and minimise the risk of missed collections. The fault in this case lay not in the absence of adequate procedures but a failure to follow them properly.
39. Clearly, the Council also has procedures in place to monitor missed collections and address these with the contractor, with potential financial consequences for poor performance. But its customer service provided to Mr B leads me to question the accuracy of the statistics it keeps on complaints. As despite the frequent dissatisfaction Mr B reported it is unclear if it treated this as a complaint at all.
40. Turning to the injustice these events caused Mr B, I find that he experienced unnecessary frustration and inconvenience in repeatedly reporting missed collections. Mr B could not use the website reporting tool but had to telephone each time where the Council recorded wrongly, he had not put waste out for collection. The Council has explained its reasons for this, which I accept, but this only added to Mr B’s inconvenience.
41. In addition, he then experienced further time and trouble in trying to resolve these issues through making a complaint because of the poor customer service received at times.
42. I consider actions taken by the Council go part-way to remedying Mr B’s injustice. It has acknowledged fault and offered explanation for why it occurred. It has also refunded Mr B for the service. However, I do not consider these measures go far enough to recognise the extent of Mr B’s injustice. I am pleased therefore the Council has agreed to take some further action to remedy this, which I set out below.

Back to top

Agreed action

Personal Remedy

43. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr B the Council has agreed that within 20 working days of a final decision on this complaint, it will:
1. provide Mr B with an apology that recognises the findings of this investigation; this will take account of recently published guidance by this office on delivering apologies which can be found here: Guidance on remedies - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman
2. make a symbolic payment to Mr B of £100 in recognition of his inconvenience, time and trouble (this takes account of the net £60 refund given to Mr B for the poor service as per paragraph 33 above);
3. offer to reinstate the garden waste collection service free to Mr B, until the end of March 2024; this takes account of the change the Council has now made in putting Mr B’s property on its ‘special requirement list’, which should make it less likely he will experience repeated problems should he use the service again.
44. I noted the Council’s offer that Mr B could meet with its Head of Service if he wanted to, for an apology in person. He advised however, that he was content for the Council to apologise in writing.

Service improvements

45. I noted above my general satisfaction with the polices and procedures the Council has in place for garden waste collection and its monitoring. I also noted the recent training given to staff on complaint handling. I considered this meant it was not necessary to remind relevant staff of the need to record expressions of dissatisfaction with the waste collection service as complaints (these are distinct from service requests to remedy single missed collections). Or, to remind them of the need for signposting through the Council’s complaint procedure including signposting to this office.
46. However, I considered there was still scope for the Council to learn lessons from this complaint. So, within two months of a decision on this complaint it will also:

• remind relevant officers who deal with complaints of repeated missed collections to consider if they should enter a property on the ‘special requirement list’. This can include where issues arise because of the property location or layout as opposed to the needs of the occupier.

47. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

48. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Mr B. The Council accepts these findings and has agreed action I consider will remedy his injustice. Therefore, I have completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman