Summary: There was fault by Serco which acts for the Council. Serco’s crew overfilled Ms X’s bin with waste from other properties, which broke the lid when emptying the contents into the lorry. The Council then wrongly said Ms X was responsible for overfilling and refused to give her a new bin for free. It also failed to review Ms X’s videos. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and instruct Serco to stop using one bin to collect waste from other properties.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained contractors working for the Council broke her bin lid then wrongly accused her of overfilling the bin when she complained about it. Ms X said the crew overfilled her bin with waste from other houses on her street before loading it onto the lorry.
2. In consequence Ms X has a broken bin and has to pay for a replacement. She has also had to put her black bin waste elsewhere until collection day.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. Serco provides waste collection for the Council. We can investigate it. Any fault by Serco is fault by the Council.
6. 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

7. I considered Ms X’s complaint, the Council’s responses and videos from the contractor and from Ms X. I discussed the complaint with Ms X.
8. Ms X, the Council and Serco had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Ms X’s road is narrow and she told us it was usual practice for the crew to use her bin to collect waste from other properties on the street and wheel it back down to the corner of the road to be placed on the truck. Her video (see paragraph 13) shows this practice in action.
10. CCTV from the back of the bin lorry on 14 March shows an overfull black bin with Ms X’s house number on it being loaded onto the lorry. The lid comes off and disappears inside the truck when the machine tips the contents in. As the camera is at the back of the lorry, the footage is limited to the bin coming in and out and does not show activity on the street (like whether or not the crew had filled the bin up with waste from other properties.)
11. Ms X reported the broken bin to the Council. Receiving no response, she complained. The Council’s first complaint response in April said residents had to pay for replacement bins which are damaged by wear and tear. It went on to say the bin would not have broken had it been in good condition. Finally, the crew would report a bin they had broken (if it split, cracked or fell into the lorry) and this would be replaced for free.
12. Ms X was not happy with the first response. So she escalated her complaint. The Council’s second response did not uphold her complaint. It said:
• Residents could have a free bin if it was damaged by the truck
• If a bin was overfilled, it would not be emptied. Excess waste should be taken to the recycling centre or a bulky collection should be arranged
• Serco’s CCTV recorded the collection. The bin was clearly over filled and the bin broke and lost its lid because of overfilling.
13. Ms X sent the Council video footage and photos from her phone which she took on a later collection day in May. This shows the same bin on the street awaiting collection, still lidless and not over full. An operative then fills the bin up with sacks from other homes, using it like a wheelbarrow to load on to the bin lorry.
14. Serco told us it had not seen Ms X’s video and they would have made a different decision had it been available when responding to Ms X’s complaint.

Findings

15. The key issue is whether the crew or Ms X overfilled the bin. There is no footage of the collection in March showing what was going on before the overloaded bin was placed onto the back of the lorry. The Council asserts it was down to Ms X; whereas she denies this and says it was usual for crew to use her bin to collect waste from other properties and load it onto the truck overfull.
16. Ms X’s video suggests two months after her complaint about the same matter, crew are overfilling the bin and then emptying it, which is against policy as set out in the second complaint response. This is fault. Policy says overfull bins will not be collected and residents should use the recycling centre or arrange a bulky collection.
17. Where there is a dispute about the facts, we can decide on a balance of probabilities what happened. I am satisfied on 14 March, the crew bore responsibility and not Ms X. I have relied on her video as I am not persuaded by the Council’s explanation and Serco’s CCTV shows clearly that the bin was overfull which is against policy, whoever was responsible for putting too much in it.
18. Serco and the Council did not consider Ms X’s video. If they had, it seems likely the Council would have changed its position and decided the damage was not Ms X’s fault. This was a missed opportunity for the Council and its contractor to resolve the matter without an LGSCO investigation.
19. The Council has not had proper oversight of the complaint about the behaviour of its contractor Serco and this was fault.
20. The injustice to Ms X is avoidable time and trouble, inconvenience and the cost of having to get a new bin. There is also avoidable distress of being wrongly accused of something she did not do.

Back to top

Agreed action

21. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them. So, although I found fault with Serco, I have made recommendations to the Council.
22. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will:
• Give Ms X a new bin for free and remove the broken bin
• Apologise to her for the avoidable time and trouble, for not considering her video footage, for accusing her of being responsible for damage to the bin and pay her £100 to reflect this
• Instruct Serco to stop the practice of putting other people’s waste into one bin so it overflows, especially Ms X’s bin, but in other cases as well.
23. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

24. There was fault by Serco which acts for the Council. Crew overfilled Ms X’s bin with waste from other properties, which broke the lid when loaded onto the bin lorry. The Council then wrongly said Ms X was responsible and refused to give her a new bin for free. It also failed to review Ms X’s videos. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and instruct Serco to stop using one bin to collect waste from other properties.
25. I have completed the investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman